Believe the Bible - or mock the Bible - which do you choose?

[Speedwell]

It is heresy and false teaching to claim that the events Jesus quoted were me
8 "`These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.
9 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'rely myths that simple minded goat herders believed. Jesus was neither. He was and is the son of God. The Scriptures are the word of God. Man cannot live on bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. How could that be possible if there were no words from the mouth of God?

Theistic evolution is based on a REJECTION of the Scriptures. The foolish man is not the one who trusts in the word of the Lord, no matter how difficult it is to believe, the foolish man is the one who rejects the teaching of the Lord for the teaching of man.

What I am telling you that your claim that Jesus thought the OT is historical-positivist narrative is not borne out by His use of the texts. All that may reasonably be concluded from the passages cited is that He thought the OT contained divinely inspired historical narrative about real people, which I agree with, BTW.
There are and have been many different legitimate ways to write historical narrative--for God or anyone else to choose from. The Creationist claim that there is only one legitimate form (a form only even attempted by humans in the last couple of centuries) and that anything else is a lie and a rejection of scripture, is offensive, slanderous, self-serving nonsense.

And shame on you for trying to use Jesus' words to prove it. What I wonder is why you want to.

 

[BobRyan]

What I am telling you that your claim that Jesus thought the OT is historical-positivist narrative is not borne out by His use of the texts. All that may reasonably be concluded from the passages cited is that He thought the OT contained divinely inspired historical narrative about real people, which I agree with, BTW.

Indeed - accurate, trustworthy, historic truth - fact - reliable fact according to Christ.

1. He believed the Old Testament was historical fact. This is very clear, even though from the Creation (cf. Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:4, 5) onward, much of what He believed has long been under fire by critics, as being mere fiction. Some examples of historical facts:
   • Luke 11:51—Abel was a real individual
   • Matthew 24:37–39—Noah and the flood (Luke 17:26, 27)
   • John 8:56–58—Abraham
   • Matthew 10:15; Luke 10:12)—Sodom and Gomorrah
   • Luke 17:28–32—Lot (and wife!)
   • Matthew 8:11—Isaac and Jacob (Luke 13:28)
   • John 6:31, 49, 58—Manna
   • John 3:14—Serpent
   • Matthew 12:39–41—Jonah (vs. 42—Sheba)
   • Matthew 24:15—Daniel and Isaiah
2. He believed the books were written by the men whose names they bear:
   • Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Torah): Matthew 19:7, 8; Mark 7:10, 12:26 (“Book of Moses”—the Torah); Luke 5:14; 16:29,31; 24:27, 44 (“Christ’s Canon”); John 1:17; 5:45, 46; 7:19; (“The Law [Torah] was given by Moses; Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ.”)5
   • Isaiah wrote “both” Isaiah’s: Mark 7:6–13; John 12:37–41 [Ed. note: Liberals claim that Isaiah 40-66 was composed after the fall of Jerusalem by another writer they call “Deutero-Isaiah”. The only real “reason” for their claim is that a straightforward dating would mean that predictive prophecy was possible, and liberals have decreed a priori that knowledge of the future is impossible (like miracles in general). Thus these portions must have been written after the events. However, there is nothing in the text itself to hint of a different author. See The Unity of Isaiah. In fact, even the Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll was a seamless unity. But as Dr Livingston said, since Jesus affirmed the unity of Isaiah, the deutero-Isaiah theory is just not an option for anyone calling himself a follower of Christ.]
   • Jonah wrote Jonah: Matthew 12:39–41
   • Daniel wrote Daniel: Matthew 24:15
3. He believed the Old Testament was spoken by God Himself, or written by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, even though the pen was held by men: Matthew 19:4, 5; 22:31, 32, 43; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37.

In fact so also do the other NT writers -- referring to OT text as "The Holy Spirit says..." in places like Hebrews 3.

Jesus Himself calling the OT text "The Word of God" in Mark 7:6-13


===================

In Hebrews 3 the OT text is referred to as 'The Holy Spirit SAYS..."

 

[BobRyan]

“Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?”

Then notice how clear and irrefutable the text of God's Word "by contrast"?

Originally Posted by BobRyan =========================================
One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.

"Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. "

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.

=====================

"Six days you shall labor... for in SIX days the LORD Made..." Ex 20:8-11

Spoken by God and written in "legal code" not in "parable

 

[Speedwell]

Indeed - accurate, trustworthy, historic truth - fact - reliable fact according to Christ.

1. He believed the Old Testament was historical fact. This is very clear, even though from the Creation (cf. Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:4, 5) onward, much of what He believed has long been under fire by critics, as being mere fiction. Some examples of historical facts:
   • Luke 11:51—Abel was a real individual
   • Matthew 24:37–39—Noah and the flood (Luke 17:26, 27)
   • John 8:56–58—Abraham
   • Matthew 10:15; Luke 10:12)—Sodom and Gomorrah
   • Luke 17:28–32—Lot (and wife!)
   • Matthew 8:11—Isaac and Jacob (Luke 13:28)
   • John 6:31, 49, 58—Manna
   • John 3:14—Serpent
   • Matthew 12:39–41—Jonah (vs. 42—Sheba)
   • Matthew 24:15—Daniel and Isaiah
2. He believed the books were written by the men whose names they bear:
   • Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Torah): Matthew 19:7, 8; Mark 7:10, 12:26 (“Book of Moses”—the Torah); Luke 5:14; 16:29,31; 24:27, 44 (“Christ’s Canon”); John 1:17; 5:45, 46; 7:19; (“The Law [Torah] was given by Moses; Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ.”)5
   • Isaiah wrote “both” Isaiah’s: Mark 7:6–13; John 12:37–41 [Ed. note: Liberals claim that Isaiah 40-66 was composed after the fall of Jerusalem by another writer they call “Deutero-Isaiah”. The only real “reason” for their claim is that a straightforward dating would mean that predictive prophecy was possible, and liberals have decreed a priori that knowledge of the future is impossible (like miracles in general). Thus these portions must have been written after the events. However, there is nothing in the text itself to hint of a different author. See The Unity of Isaiah. In fact, even the Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll was a seamless unity. But as Dr Livingston said, since Jesus affirmed the unity of Isaiah, the deutero-Isaiah theory is just not an option for anyone calling himself a follower of Christ.]
   • Jonah wrote Jonah: Matthew 12:39–41
   • Daniel wrote Daniel: Matthew 24:15
3. He believed the Old Testament was spoken by God Himself, or written by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, even though the pen was held by men: Matthew 19:4, 5; 22:31, 32, 43; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37.

In fact so also do the other NT writers -- referring to OT text as "The Holy Spirit says..." in places like Hebrews 3.

Jesus Himself calling the OT text "The Word of God" in Mark 7:6-13


===================

In Hebrews 3 the OT text is referred to as 'The Holy Spirit SAYS..."

So what? You still haven't justified your claim. I don't think you can.
Perhaps that is why you dismiss reasonable criticisms of your weak arguments as attacks on Christianity itself by Bible-hating atheists.

 

[daleksteve]

Judging by how much obvious extra-terrestial (alien) activity there is in the bible how can the bible still be taken as literal. Are miracles still classed as miracles in a biblical sense if they are performed using advanced alien technology?

 

[BobRyan]

Judging by how much obvious extra-terrestial (alien) activity there is in the bible how can the bible still be taken as literal. Are miracles still classed as miracles in a biblical sense if they are performed using advanced alien technology?

Certainly lots of angels in the Bible - and they are not from earth.

Is the idea then that the only intelligent created beings in the entire universe - are humans ...err...umm... because our telescopes do not show us any others? (As if our telescopes had perfect detail of all planets in every galaxy in the universe)

"Before the Kepler space telescope launched, we did not know whether exoplanets were rare or common in the galaxy. Thanks to Kepler and the research community, we now know there could be more planets than stars,” said Paul Hertz, Astrophysics Division director at NASA Headquarters. "This knowledge informs the future missions that are needed to take us ever-closer to finding out whether we are alone in the universe."
http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/n...largest-collection-of-planets-ever-discovered

NASA's Kepler mission has verified 1,284 new planets – the single largest finding of planets to date.

“This announcement more than doubles the number of confirmed planets from Kepler,” said Ellen Stofan, chief scientist at NASA Headquarters in Washington. “This gives us hope that somewhere out there, around a star much like ours, we can eventually discover another Earth.”

"Analysis was performed on the Kepler space telescope’s July 2015 planet candidate catalog, which identified 4,302 potential planets. For 1,284 of the candidates, the probability of being a planet is greater than 99 percent – the minimum required to earn the status of “planet.” An additional 1,327 candidates are more likely than not to be actual planets, but they do not meet the 99 percent threshold and will require additional study. The remaining 707 are more likely to be some other astrophysical phenomena."

 

[BobRyan]

What I am telling you that your claim that Jesus thought the OT is historical-positivist narrative is not borne out by His use of the texts. All that may reasonably be concluded from the passages cited is that He thought the OT contained divinely inspired historical narrative about real people, which I agree with, BTW.

Indeed - accurate, trustworthy, historic truth - fact - reliable fact according to Christ.

1. He believed the Old Testament was historical fact. This is very clear, even though from the Creation (cf. Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:4, 5) onward, much of what He believed has long been under fire by critics, as being mere fiction. Some examples of historical facts:
   • Luke 11:51—Abel was a real individual
   • Matthew 24:37–39—Noah and the flood (Luke 17:26, 27)
   • John 8:56–58—Abraham
   • Matthew 10:15; Luke 10:12)—Sodom and Gomorrah
   • Luke 17:28–32—Lot (and wife!)
   • Matthew 8:11—Isaac and Jacob (Luke 13:28)
   • John 6:31, 49, 58—Manna
   • John 3:14—Serpent
   • Matthew 12:39–41—Jonah (vs. 42—Sheba)
   • Matthew 24:15—Daniel and Isaiah
2. He believed the books were written by the men whose names they bear:
   • Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Torah): Matthew 19:7, 8; Mark 7:10, 12:26 (“Book of Moses”—the Torah); Luke 5:14; 16:29,31; 24:27, 44 (“Christ’s Canon”); John 1:17; 5:45, 46; 7:19; (“The Law [Torah] was given by Moses; Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ.”)5
   • Isaiah wrote “both” Isaiah’s: Mark 7:6–13; John 12:37–41 [Ed. note: Liberals claim that Isaiah 40-66 was composed after the fall of Jerusalem by another writer they call “Deutero-Isaiah”. The only real “reason” for their claim is that a straightforward dating would mean that predictive prophecy was possible, and liberals have decreed a priori that knowledge of the future is impossible (like miracles in general). Thus these portions must have been written after the events. However, there is nothing in the text itself to hint of a different author. See The Unity of Isaiah. In fact, even the Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll was a seamless unity. But as Dr Livingston said, since Jesus affirmed the unity of Isaiah, the deutero-Isaiah theory is just not an option for anyone calling himself a follower of Christ.]
   • Jonah wrote Jonah: Matthew 12:39–41
   • Daniel wrote Daniel: Matthew 24:15
3. He believed the Old Testament was spoken by God Himself, or written by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, even though the pen was held by men: Matthew 19:4, 5; 22:31, 32, 43; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37.

In fact so also do the other NT writers -- referring to OT text as "The Holy Spirit says..." in places like Hebrews 3.

Jesus Himself calling the OT text "The Word of God" in Mark 7:6-13


===================

In Hebrews 3 the OT text is referred to as 'The Holy Spirit SAYS..."

So what? You still haven't justified your claim. I don't think you can.

On the contrary - "the details" you are glossing over (as if to ignore them is to refute them)
demonstrate that the Bible is to be taken as accurate, trustworthy, historic truth - fact - reliable fact according to Christ.

This is irrefutable.

Perhaps that is why you dismiss reasonable criticisms of your weak arguments attacking the accuracy of the Bible in harmony with the urantia text being promoted here against the Bible.

The fact that atheists also enjoy attacking the Bible - is a point that is ... irrefutable.

 

[4x4toy]

God came to Earth in the form of the man Jesus . We killed him but we can't stop him or his plan for each person .. He was crucified then bodily resurrected to prove life beyond the grave all according to ancient prophecy recorded in scripture .. It's been approx. 2016 yrs since he rose from the grave .. Time is short for either our life or the End time as prophecy fulfills .. Escaping eternal damnation is as simple as believing and confessing Jesus is Lord to eternal life .. There is no other way or way out and eternity is forever ..

 

[daleksteve]

Certainly lots of angels in the Bible - and they are not from earth.

Is the idea then that the only intelligent created beings in the entire universe - are humans ...err...umm... because our telescopes do not show us any others? (As if our telescopes had perfect detail of all planets in every galaxy in the universe)

Not all Angels are supernatural beings, some are physical Aliens beings as mortal as we are but with technology so far advanced that it will appear supernatural to you

Humans are NOT the only intelligent beings in the universe and Earth is not even unique. there are people out there millions of years more advanced than us and are responsible for bringing religion to earth in the first place.

Why do we need telescopes to see these Aliens beings. All you need is to look in every religious book in the world and you can clearly see Alien beings masquarading as Gods

 

[4x4toy]

What planet do you live on Armglarm ?

 

[daleksteve]

What planet do you live on Armglarm ?

Who is Armglarm?

 

[Speedwell]

On the contrary - "the details" you are glossing over (as if to ignore them is to refute them) demonstrate that the Bible is to be taken as accurate, trustworthy, historic truth - fact - reliable fact according to Christ.

On the evidence of the Bible passages you cite, there is little doubt that Jesus believed that the Hebrew scriptures were the Word of God as that term was understood in His day and that the scripture he referred to or quoted were parts of divinely inspired historical narrative about people who really existed.

How you get from there to 100% accurate literal history is still a mystery.

This is irrefutable.

Who knows? It may be, but you have yet to present a credible argument to refute.

The fact that atheists also enjoy attacking the Bible - is a point that is ... irrefutable.

Notice that I am not "attacking the Bible" I am attacking your argument. Or are you too arrogant to see the difference?

 

[BobRyan]

Not all Angels are supernatural beings, some are physical Aliens beings as mortal as we are but with technology so far advanced that it will appear supernatural to you

If we define "supernatural being" has - some person with more ability than a human - then all angels are supernatural. They all live for 1000's of years, they fly, all of them - each of them -- vastly more intelligent and powerful than humans etc. (No matter if fallen or unfallen)

Humans are NOT the only intelligent beings in the universe and Earth is not even unique.

That is certainly true.

there are people out there millions of years more advanced than us

I don't doubt that they are all ahead of us by a long shot. But I do doubt that they are wicked. We have managed to be host to all the wicked ones.

and are responsible for bringing religion to earth in the first place.

True of the angels at least.

Why do we need telescopes to see these Aliens beings. All you need is to look in every religious book in the world and you can clearly see Alien beings masquarading as Gods

More truth than fiction to that one. But not in the case of the good angels - and not in the case of God Himself.

 

[BobRyan]

What I am telling you that your claim that Jesus thought the OT is historical-positivist narrative is not borne out by His use of the texts. All that may reasonably be concluded from the passages cited is that He thought the OT contained divinely inspired historical narrative about real people, which I agree with, BTW.

Indeed - accurate, trustworthy, historic truth - fact - reliable fact according to Christ.

1. He believed the Old Testament was historical fact. This is very clear, even though from the Creation (cf. Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:4, 5) onward, much of what He believed has long been under fire by critics, as being mere fiction. Some examples of historical facts:
   • Luke 11:51—Abel was a real individual
   • Matthew 24:37–39—Noah and the flood (Luke 17:26, 27)
   • John 8:56–58—Abraham
   • Matthew 10:15; Luke 10:12)—Sodom and Gomorrah
   • Luke 17:28–32—Lot (and wife!)
   • Matthew 8:11—Isaac and Jacob (Luke 13:28)
   • John 6:31, 49, 58—Manna
   • John 3:14—Serpent
   • Matthew 12:39–41—Jonah (vs. 42—Sheba)
   • Matthew 24:15—Daniel and Isaiah
2. He believed the books were written by the men whose names they bear:
   • Moses wrote the Pentateuch (Torah): Matthew 19:7, 8; Mark 7:10, 12:26 (“Book of Moses”—the Torah); Luke 5:14; 16:29,31; 24:27, 44 (“Christ’s Canon”); John 1:17; 5:45, 46; 7:19; (“The Law [Torah] was given by Moses; Grace and Truth came by Jesus Christ.”)5
   • Isaiah wrote “both” Isaiah’s: Mark 7:6–13; John 12:37–41 [Ed. note: Liberals claim that Isaiah 40-66 was composed after the fall of Jerusalem by another writer they call “Deutero-Isaiah”. The only real “reason” for their claim is that a straightforward dating would mean that predictive prophecy was possible, and liberals have decreed a priori that knowledge of the future is impossible (like miracles in general). Thus these portions must have been written after the events. However, there is nothing in the text itself to hint of a different author. See The Unity of Isaiah. In fact, even the Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll was a seamless unity. But as Dr Livingston said, since Jesus affirmed the unity of Isaiah, the deutero-Isaiah theory is just not an option for anyone calling himself a follower of Christ.]
   • Jonah wrote Jonah: Matthew 12:39–41
   • Daniel wrote Daniel: Matthew 24:15
3. He believed the Old Testament was spoken by God Himself, or written by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration, even though the pen was held by men: Matthew 19:4, 5; 22:31, 32, 43; Mark 12:26; Luke 20:37.

In fact so also do the other NT writers -- referring to OT text as "The Holy Spirit says..." in places like Hebrews 3.

Jesus Himself calling the OT text "The Word of God" in Mark 7:6-13


===================

In Hebrews 3 the OT text is referred to as 'The Holy Spirit SAYS..."

So what? You still haven't justified your claim. I don't think you can.

On the contrary - "the details" you are glossing over (as if to ignore them is to refute them)
demonstrate that the Bible is to be taken as accurate, trustworthy, historic truth - fact - reliable fact according to Christ.

This is irrefutable.

Perhaps that is why you dismiss reasonable criticisms of your weak arguments attacking the accuracy of the Bible in harmony with the urantia text being promoted here against the Bible.

The fact that atheists also enjoy attacking the Bible - is a point that is ... irrefutable.

On the evidence of the Bible passages you cite, there is little doubt that Jesus believed that the Hebrew scriptures were the Word of God

well then is there some doubt that He thought of God as the 'source of truth' and not "a liar"???

as that term was understood in His day and that the scripture he referred to or quoted were parts of divinely inspired historical narrative about people who really existed.

"ALL Scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine, correction, reproof" 2 Tim 3:16. Were Paul and Jesus "confused" on this point - or telling the truth?

How you get from there to 100% accurate literal history is still a mystery.

How you get from these statements to "Bible is not really telling the truth" is still a mystery.

You have yet to present a credible argument to refute.
Notice that I am not "attacking the Bible" I am attacking your argument.

However if you wish to present yourself as an atheist and ask me to prove that God exists and the Bible is His word - we might be having a more well-reasoned discussion. As it is - you seem to "assume it" - but given that you post as "Anglican" it is not at all clear that you can retreat to such a position as though we must regard you to be the "uninformed atheist". You can't have it "both ways".

 

[Speedwell]

well then is there some doubt that He thought of God as the 'source of truth' and not "a liar"???

No doubt whatever, not to my mind.

But please note: "God is not a liar" does not constitute a credible argument for your position--it is merely an assertion.

"ALL Scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for doctrine, correction, reproof" 2 Tim 3:16. Were Paul and Jesus "confused" on this point - or telling the truth?

Telling the truth, of course.

How you get from these statements to "Bible is not really telling the truth" is still a mystery.

I never said anything remotely like that.

However if you wish to present yourself as an atheist and ask me to prove that God exists and the Bible is His word - we might be having a more well-reasoned discussion. As it is - you seem to "assume it" - but given that you post as "Anglican" it is not at all clear that you can retreat to such a position as though we must regard you to be the "uninformed atheist". You can't have it "both ways".

How banal. Although I believe in God and that the Bible is His word, and agree that Jesus did as well, I must be an atheist because I don't--immediately and without requiring an argument--agree to your interpretation of scripture.

Or maybe you don't even see that there is something missing. Maybe you truly believe that the only way an historical narrative can be "true" is to be 100% accurately and factually true and that anything else is a "lie."

 

[BobRyan]

As you have stated - God is not a liar and the Bible is HIS Word. Even the Bible states - God is the author of the Bible.

The Bible does not lie and is not "ill informed" or "incapable" of stating direct straightforward accounts in history.

When the Bible gives a timeline "too long" for the preferences of the atheist in Gen 5 -- well then some say "the Bible is not correct as written" --

When the Bible gives a timeline "too short" for the preferences of the atheist in Gen 1:2-2:3 -- well then some say "the Bible is incorrect again"

We can all see why atheists do it. No rocket-science needed.

Your argument appears to be that some non-atheists may join them in doing so - but your statement does not make it 'better' nor does it make it scientific or exegesis. It is mere "preference".

================================

Getting back to the OP do you take the Bible as

a. often wrong - but that is ok it was written by prescientific ignorant men.
b. right as it states the matter - no errors
c. bendable to whatever the current preference is in modern liberal thinking. So that it is "right as bent" but not "as it reads". In this model the onus is on the reader to faithfully 'bend the text" to fit whatever the current modern preferences dictate as being "what really happened" or else continually "limiting the Bible" so it is always restricted the text to what "the Bible is allowed" to speak to -- so as not to disturb pure atheist doctrines found in blind-faith evolutionism.

 

[Speedwell]

You really don't get it--that it is possible for an historical narrative to be true without being 100% accurate literal history?

Perhaps you are right, that the Genesis narratives are 100% accurate literal history.
But they don't need to be in order to be true and worthy of God to have inspired and Jesus to have quoted.

So you need an argument for it--you can't just make the assertion.

 

[BobRyan]

You really don't get it--that it is possible for an historical narrative to be true without being 100% accurate literal history?

Perhaps you are right, that the Genesis narratives are 100% accurate literal history.
But they don't need to be in order to be true and worthy of God to have inspired and Jesus to have quoted.

So you need an argument for it -- proof -- evidence --you can't just make the assertion.

In this case you argue that God is the author of error - and that should not mean it is not right from God.

In Ex 20 - the 7 day timeline is in "legal code" spoken by God - written with the finger of God - demanding the very 7 day timeline that blind faith evolutionism would reject.

So the burden of 'proof' is on the argument that says "well God wrote it but it is wrong... that is just one of things that God likes to do" or some such statement.

 

[BobRyan]

As already noted in this Bible detail most to be rejected according to blind faith evolutionism -- "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for IN SIX days the LORD created the heavens and the earth - and rested the 7th day"

This is irrefutable - and the failed attempts to marry the Bible to evolutionism do not survive this "Bible detail"

Gen 2 -
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

Ex 20 - legal code (not poetry - not symbolism)
8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

this is a bible detail that cannot be ignored when admitting that the Bible describes a real - literal "six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord made" 7 day week for creation that maps exactly to the week of Exodus 20.

Irrefutable.

========================================

So much so that atheists have no problem admitting to what the text says -- even though they do not agree with its teaching.

Atheists often don't mind "admitting" to what the Bible says - they simply reject what it says. As in rejecting the virgin birth, the bodily ascension of Christ, the miracles of the bible and in this example they freely admit to what the Bible says - while rejecting it as 'truth'.

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

=======================

That is the opinion of professors not at all inclined to accept the 7 day creation week that we find in Gen 1:2-2:3 yet they can still 'read' and point to the author's intent - whether they agree with the author or not


Bible believing Christians are not in a conflict-of-interest on this Bible detail because they freely reject blind faith evolutionism - so no Bible bending the text of Genesis for them.

Atheists are not in a conflict of interest position on this Bible detail because they freely reject the Bible - so they too do not engage in Bible bending in Genesis as Dr Barr points out.

 

[4x4toy]

On the evidence of the Bible passages you cite, there is little doubt that Jesus believed that the Hebrew scriptures were the Word of God as that term was understood in His day and that the scripture he referred to or quoted were parts of divinely inspired historical narrative about people who really existed.

How you get from there to 100% accurate literal history is still a mystery.




Who knows? It may be, but you have yet to present a credible argument to refute.



Notice that I am not "attacking the Bible" I am attacking your argument. Or are you too arrogant to see the difference?

Why are you so bitter Speedy ?