Is the Bible reliable?

[BobRyan]

Many atheists today claim the Bible is not reliable. They claim it does not give a reliable historic record of the events in history that it "claims" to describe.

That is no surprise - after all - they are atheists.

What about Christians? should Christians join in making that charge against the Bible? Would it benefit Christianity to join the atheists in that little game of theirs?

A large section of Christianity in many different denominations unwittingly choose to join them -- at times.

for example -

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

The pope was addressing the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which gathered Monday at the Vatican to discuss "Evolving Concepts of Nature."
"When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so," Francis said.
"He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment."
Francis said the beginning of the world was not "a work of chaos" but created from a principle of love. He said sometimes competing beliefs in creation and evolution could co-exist.

Pope says evolution, Big Bang are real


Pope Francis tells an audience that the Big Bang does not contradict the "creative intervention of God". He says, "on the contrary, it requires it". Rough Cut (no reporter narration). Newslook"God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life," the pope said. "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve."


Unlike much of evangelical Protestantism in the U.S., Catholic teaching traditionally has not been at odds with evolution.
=========================================end quote


This is not a scientific debate - it is a question of "the text" of scripture itself.


How many miracles - how many acts of God can we throw out the window in services to an external agenda - one external to the text??


Nobody seriously thinks that Moses was out to preach darwinian-evolutionism.


And evolution is never stated in the form "for in six days the Lord created the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them" Ex 20:11.


If God is not "able" to create all life on earth in 6 days - then why does He present such false marketing in the Bible itself? That is a question atheists can rightfully ask if one tries to marry the Bible to the blind-faith-stories of evolutionism.


should we make the atheist's argument for them -by going down such a self-conflicted path? It is self-defeating to the gospel and to acceptance of the Bible as a reliable trustworthy record of the acts of God in sacred history, to cclaim that God is not able to do as He stated in His own historic account given to mankind by divine revelation.


Thoughts?


in Christ,


Bob

 

[topcare]

Well I think we need to ask some questions about the Bible.

1. Is the Bible to be taken completely literal in every way?
2. Is the Genesis account a literal account or does it teach a theological truth
3. Is the Bible made to contain everything?
4. Did God write the Bible Himself or did He inspire man to write the Bible using what they knew at the time?

So I think the Big Bang could have happened, God spoke and bang it happened in one instance. It is also conceivable that God could use evolution. Neither of these go against the Bible unless one assumes everything in the Bible must be the literal truth.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Well I think we need to ask some questions about the Bible.

1. Is the Bible to be taken completely literally in every way?
2. Is the Genesis account a literal account or does it teach a theological truth
3. Is the Bible made to contain everything?
4. Did God write the Bible Himself or did He inspire man to write the Bible using what they knew at the time?

So I think the Big Bang could have happened, God spoke and bang it happened in one instance. It is also conceivable that God could use evolution. Neither of these go against the Bible unless one assumes everything in the Bible must be the literal truth.

The original post asks loaded questions and uses terms designed to denigrate those who do not share the views expressed in it. For example it is "that little game of theirs" rather than a more even handed "their position" and associating Christians with atheists with the words "should Christians join in making that charge" is obviously an appeal to prejudice rather than a question seeking open discussion between people with varying views. These tactics make having a meaningful discussion about literalism and biblical interpretation rather difficult.

Is the bible reliable? That depends on what questions you bring to the bible for an answer. If you come to the bible with a question on the big bang theory of the formation of the cosmos then the bible isn't going to be very helpful and what it says is not relevant to the question. If you come to the bible with a question about human fallibility and moral difficulties then the bible will give some good advice and good insights for answering the question.

 

[MyLordMySavior]

Many atheists today claim the Bible is not reliable. They claim it does not give a reliable historic record of the events in history that it "claims" to describe.

That is no surprise - after all - they are atheists.

What about Christians? should Christians join in making that charge against the Bible? Would it benefit Christianity to join the atheists in that little game of theirs?

A large section of Christianity in many different denominations unwittingly choose to join them -- at times.

for example -

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

The pope was addressing the plenary assembly of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, which gathered Monday at the Vatican to discuss "Evolving Concepts of Nature."
"When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so," Francis said.
"He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment."
Francis said the beginning of the world was not "a work of chaos" but created from a principle of love. He said sometimes competing beliefs in creation and evolution could co-exist.

Pope says evolution, Big Bang are real


Pope Francis tells an audience that the Big Bang does not contradict the "creative intervention of God". He says, "on the contrary, it requires it". Rough Cut (no reporter narration). Newslook"God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life," the pope said. "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve."


Unlike much of evangelical Protestantism in the U.S., Catholic teaching traditionally has not been at odds with evolution.
=========================================end quote


This is not a scientific debate - it is a question of "the text" of scripture itself.


How many miracles - how many acts of God can we throw out the window in services to an external agenda - one external to the text??


Nobody seriously thinks that Moses was out to preach darwinian-evolutionism.


And evolution is never stated in the form "for in six days the Lord created the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them" Ex 20:11.


If God is not "able" to create all life on earth in 6 days - then why does He present such false marketing in the Bible itself? That is a question atheists can rightfully ask if one tries to marry the Bible to the blind-faith-stories of evolutionism.


should we make the atheist's argument for them -by going down such a self-conflicted path? It is self-defeating to the gospel and to acceptance of the Bible as a reliable trustworthy record of the acts of God in sacred history, to cclaim that God is not able to do as He stated in His own historic account given to mankind by divine revelation.


Thoughts?


in Christ,


Bob

YES. I believe it's true. I believe Scripture is God-breathed. The end

 

[BobRyan]

The original post asks loaded questions and uses terms designed to denigrate those who do not share the views expressed in it. For example it is "that little game of theirs" rather than a more even handed "their position"

If the atheists I refer to object to their position being described as a sort of game as they employ it to oppose the Bible - I would like to hear it from them.

If your position is that anything that does not flatter something that the Pope has said - must be evil. ... well I guess we differ.... again.

and associating Christians with atheists with the words "should Christians join in making that charge" is obviously an appeal to prejudice

If your intent is to deal with motive and conjecture rather than the actual point of the OP -- then again - we differ on how discussion happens on a discussion board.

Is the bible reliable?

That would be the subject of the OP post.

That depends on what questions you bring to the bible for an answer.

In this case it is the really easy questions. like

1. What timeline does the historical narrative of Genesis 1:2-2;3 present "in the text"?

2. Does the text itself argue against its own timeline? Even the legal code that summarises Genesis 1 in Ex 20:11 appeals to the same timeline.

3. is there anything other than an "external to the text" motive/agenda for bending the timeline give - to something more ambiguous and nonsensical?

If you come to the bible with a question on the big bang theory of the formation of the cosmos then the bible isn't going to be very helpful and what it says is not relevant to the question.

Until you actually read Genesis 1:1 where you find that yes indeed the universe does have a single point in time - creation event.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

YES. I believe it's true. I believe Scripture is God-breathed. The end

In that case you will find the historic narrative of Genesis 1;1-2:3 to be very straightforward and a true historic account of the creation of the heavens and the earth as Genesis 2:4 claims.

a great many former Christians found that when they tried to marry the Bible to evolutionism - starting with the position that evolutionism is true no matter what the Bible says to the contrary - found that they lost Christianity entirely.

So said Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, Meyers and a host of others.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

If the atheists I refer to object to their position being described as a sort of game as they employ it to oppose the Bible - I would like to hear it from them.

If you really did want to hear from atheists on the matter of your use of the phrase "that little game of theirs" then you opened this thread in the wrong forum because this is a Christians Only forum so atheists can't really reply in here. Why not take those words to an atheist forum and see how they go?

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
If your intent is to deal with motive and conjecture rather than the actual point of the OP -- then again - we differ on how discussion happens on a discussion board.
...

I contend that the original post was not making a point so much as soliciting agreement. It was couched in words that make any who disagree into the enemy of the bible. That's just bad. It's bad theology and its bad manners.

 

[BobRyan]

Well I think we need to ask some questions about the Bible.

1. Is the Bible to be taken completely literal in every way?
2. Is the Genesis account a literal account or does it teach a theological truth
3. Is the Bible made to contain everything?
4. Did God write the Bible Himself or did He inspire man to write the Bible using what they knew at the time?

So I think the Big Bang could have happened, God spoke and bang it happened in one instance. It is also conceivable that God could use evolution. Neither of these go against the Bible unless one assumes everything in the Bible must be the literal truth.

1. Even atheists will agree that Christians that accept the truthful historic account of the virgin birth, and the resurrection of Christ and the 7 day Creation week of Genesis 1 - are taking the Song of Solomon and much of the book of Revelation as symbolism, poetry etc.

If the atheists admit that this is what the Christians are doing -- those of us on this board should also be able to master that bit of observation of fact.

2. The idea that theological truth is contrary to historic accuracy is foreign to the bible. You need both.

3. The bible does not have to include every detail in all of time for us to then read and accept the virgin birth or the resurrection of Christ or the flood account or the Creation Week account of Genesis 1 summarized in Ex 20:11.

I think we all agree to that point without any problem at all.

4. If the Bible is a pack of lies because God entrusted men to write it and they did not know what they were doing - then we all have a huge problem as Christians - and the atheists win this particular point,

If the Bible is "nothing more than the best efforts of good men writing in a pre-scientific age - horribly flawed in their account of reality" then historic events like the virgin birth, resurrection of Christ, creation week and Law of God are all untrustworthy.

Efforts to marry the Bible to evolutionism - only destroy confidence in the Bible and does not help evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If you really did want to hear from atheists on the matter of your use of the phrase "that little game of theirs" then you opened this thread in the wrong forum

You are the one claiming they would object.

They are the ones picking historic event after historic event in the Bible claiming that it never happened and the Bible is fiction - only to have Biblical archaeology discover historic evidence in favor of the Bible and then having to retreat from their former nay-saying position. time after time. i.e. "the game".

They simply extend that game to Genesis 1.

I am the one asking that Christians choose some other option than to unwittingly join them.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[n2thelight]

It's like a puzzle,if the pieces won't fit,don't force it.....For those with eye's to see,the Word of God is perfect..........

 

[Cody2]

Yes, the King James Bible is the pure words of God in English. It was translated from the pure line of manuscripts.

How I Know That The King James Bible Is The Word Of God by James Melton

 

[Cody2]

Yes, the King James Bible is the pure words of God in English. It was translated from the pure line of manuscripts.

How I Know That The King James Bible Is The Word Of God by James Melton

(Didn't mean to double post.)

 

[topcare]

1. Even atheists will agree that Christians that accept the truthful historic account of the virgin birth, and the resurrection of Christ and the 7 day Creation week of Genesis 1 - are taking the Song of Solomon and much of the book of Revelation as symbolism, poetry etc.

If the atheists admit that this is what the Christians are doing -- those of us on this board should also be able to master that bit of observation of fact.

Yet, those on the board insist that literal-ism is the only way. In point of fact there are many who would condemn fellow Christians because they view some of Genesis as symbolic. The fact of the matter is a belief in ex nihilo creation is not a salvation issue, you don't find Christ or the Apostles saying in order to be saved you must believe in ex nihilo creation.

2. The idea that theological truth is contrary to historic accuracy is foreign to the bible. You need both.

Not true. Parables contain theological truth yet are not historical in nature, a theological truth does not need to be historical to be truth.

3. The bible does not have to include every detail in all of time for us to then read and accept the virgin birth or the resurrection of Christ or the flood account or the Creation Week account of Genesis 1 summarized in Ex 20:11.

I think we all agree to that point without any problem at all.

a
No we don't all agree, it is very evident of that even in your thread. There are those that insist that every detail not only be there but is.

4. If the Bible is a pack of lies because God entrusted men to write it and they did not know what they were doing - then we all have a huge problem as Christians - and the atheists win this particular point,

If the Bible is "nothing more than the best efforts of good men writing in a pre-scientific age - horribly flawed in their account of reality" then historic events like the virgin birth, resurrection of Christ, creation week and Law of God are all untrustworthy.

Efforts to marry the Bible to evolution-ism - only destroy confidence in the Bible and does not help evolution-ism.

in Christ,

Bob

Not true at all. Your position assumes God auto wrote the Bible and that man was just an instrument but that is not inspiration. Inspiration uses what man knows to convey truth but to convey a truth doesn’t mean it must be literally true. We can take the truth from Genesis that God created all we see but that does not necessarily mean that how it was recorded in Genesis is how it happened.

 

[Ariston]

Well I think we need to ask some questions about the Bible.

1. Is the Bible to be taken completely literal in every way?
2. Is the Genesis account a literal account or does it teach a theological truth
3. Is the Bible made to contain everything?
4. Did God write the Bible Himself or did He inspire man to write the Bible using what they knew at the time?

So I think the Big Bang could have happened, God spoke and bang it happened in one instance. It is also conceivable that God could use evolution. Neither of these go against the Bible unless one assumes everything in the Bible must be the literal truth.

Well put!

 

[Ariston]

I actually think that the Pope is correct. Upon meticulous consideration, it's very difficult for me to see where the conflict would actually lie. Although, I can understand why some Christians believe that there there is incompatibility between modern science and the Bible, it is in fact the result of improperly reading Genesis as a science textbook and then juxtaposing it with biology and paleontology. This in turn presents the Christian (or more unfortunately, the nonbeliever) with a false dichotomy between accepting the consensus views among scientists and rejecting the Bible or accepting the Bible and rejecting science. The consequence is that it destroys the credibility of the Christian claim that we are ambassadors of the Truth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bKa92eLkQM

 

[elliott95]

I don't see the Genesis account of Creation to be an historical account in even the slightest of details.
Most of Genesis in fact would be more the stuff of legend with at most kernels of what we would now consider modern historical events involved. Exodus would follow a similar trajectory, as would much of the history of conquest that follows.
When we advance to the time of the Kings, this has much more or what can be considered authentic history in it. Much of the prophets deal with the political events of the day, as do the books of the Deuterocanons.
That would bring us to the New Testament, and the historicity of the Passion narrative.
I would think that the preponderance of Christians in this forum, and the pope too would understand that the Gospel account of the Resurrection would be of an actual historic event. The Christian community considered as a whole nevertheless often views the gospels in much the same way that I have already depicted the larger part of the Old Testament, in terms of authentic history.

Admittedly those who have argued for the historicity of the Old Testament have an easier time maintaining that argument when it comes to the historicity of the Resurrection.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I actually think that the Pope is correct. Upon meticulous consideration, it's very difficult for me to see where the conflict would actually lie. Although, I can understand why some Christians believe that there there is incompatibility between modern science and the Bible, it is in fact the result of improperly reading Genesis as a science textbook and then juxtaposing it with biology and paleontology. This in turn presents the Christian (or more unfortunately, the nonbeliever) with a false dichotomy between accepting the consensus views among scientists and rejecting the Bible or accepting the Bible and rejecting science. The consequence is that it destroys the credibility of the Christian claim that we are ambassadors of the Truth.

Science and Genesis - N.T. Wright, John Polkinghorne, Allister McGrath - YouTube

Good video clip. I hope it is watched by as many readers as this thread can attract.

 

[MoreCoffee]

You are the one claiming they would object.

Well sir, you will never ever know if you never ever go to an atheist forum and ask

They are the ones picking historic event after historic event in the Bible claiming that it never happened and the Bible is fiction - only to have Biblical archaeology discover historic evidence in favor of the Bible and then having to retreat from their former nay-saying position. time after time. i.e. "the game".

History? Genesis chapter one is not history it is poetry and theology and lessons about the false gods and the true God. It isn't historic that the earth was created before the sun and the moon and the stars. That's subordination of the hosts of heaven to the true God who created everything and left making the sun until the forth day. History is what one reads in history books.

They simply extend that game to Genesis 1.

I am the one asking that Christians choose some other option than to unwittingly join them.

in Christ,

Bob

Calling it a game is missing the point of Genesis and of those who reject the hyper-literalism evident in your posts.

 

[MyLordMySavior]

In that case you will find the historic narrative of Genesis 1;1-2:3 to be very straightforward and a true historic account of the creation of the heavens and the earth as Genesis 2:4 claims.

a great many former Christians found that when they tried to marry the Bible to evolutionism - starting with the position that evolutionism is true no matter what the Bible says to the contrary - found that they lost Christianity entirely.

So said Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, Meyers and a host of others.

in Christ,

Bob

Well, yes. I'd believe what God says over what a scientist says. The devil is decieving so many nowadays and is working hard to confuse and corrupt, I can't trust what anyone says- only what the Word says. So, yes, the Earth was made in 7 days just the way God described it.