Is the Bible reliable?

[Calminian]

No, it's not. It's just admitting that Science and Faith describe the same thing in different ways.
But let me ask you something. When you look at the act of breathing, isn't it miraculous?

No not in the sense of the classical definition of miracles. Natural processes were brought about by miracles, but they are now normative processes. They're sustained and upheld by God, but not special acts of God. They are normative and uniform and repeating, while miracles are special non-uniform non-repeating.

All processes are upheld by God, such as births, heartbeats and death. They are repeating normative observable processes. Resurrections from the dead, creation of wine from water, on the other hand, are not normative, nor repeatable for observational purposes. They are miracles.

Makes sense?

 

[Root of Jesse]

No not in the sense of the classical definition of miracles. Natural processes were brought about by miracles, but they are now normative processes. They're sustained and upheld by God, but not special acts of God. They are normative and uniform and repeating, while miracles are special non-uniform non-repeating.

All processes are upheld by God, such as births, heartbeats and death. They are repeating normative observable processes. Resurrections from the dead, creation of wine from water, on the other hand, are not normative, nor repeatable for observational purposes. They are miracles.

Makes sense?

No. The fact is that everything is a miracle. God's Creation is a miracle, so everything within it is as well.

 

[BobRyan]

No not in the sense of the classical definition of miracles. Natural processes were brought about by miracles, but they are now normative processes. They're sustained and upheld by God, but not special acts of God. They are normative and uniform and repeating, while miracles are special non-uniform non-repeating.

True - you do not "pray for a miracle" when you drink a glass of water.

But if you are dying of thirst in the desert - you "pray for a miracle".

obviously.

All processes are upheld by God, such as births, heartbeats and death. They are repeating normative observable processes. Resurrections from the dead, creation of wine from water, on the other hand, are not normative, nor repeatable for observational purposes. They are miracles.

Makes sense?

It is the fallacy of "equivocation" used to prop up evolutionism and the attempt to bend the Bible to fit the "usages" of blind faith evolutionism that tries to argue that non-God atheist-compatible evolution is the same as "And God said let there be... and there was... and evening and morning were the nth day".

Gross equivocation in the extreme indeed.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Well, I don't reject evolution out of hand.

You do whoever complain strenuously if a post appears that shows you opposing the creationist model and arguing in favor of evolutionism's "need" to bend the genesis historic account.

I do reject any evolutionary theory that rejects God being the Creator, though.

Classic T.E. -- obviously.

You seem to not be able to see the difference, which is a Protestant problem. You're blind-you don't see.

I have never rejected the fact that T.E.'s have the "need" to bend the Bible and that atheist evolutionists 'do not', in fact I often affirm that point.

Why suppose that I reject what I constantly affirm?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Classic "Bible bending" when both sides -- both the Bible believing Christians AND the evolutionist professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all "world class" universities notice your Bible bending - trying to ignore the obvious when it comes to "the kind of literature that it is" in the case of Gen 1-11.

Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
[FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================

 

[Calminian]

No. The fact is that everything is a miracle. God's Creation is a miracle, so everything within it is as well.

This is classic miracle denial. If everything is a miracle there is nothing significant about Christ's miracles or his resurrection. They would be neither signs nor wonders if they are identical to the normative processes we see every day.

You're conflating God's upholdings with God's special acts. God upholds all processes, but can also bypass normative processes when He wises to, which is what we call miracles. To call every event a miracle, is actually a denial of miracles, and even a denial of the miracle of the resurrection.

This is yet another pitfall of denying the authority of the Word of God starting in Genesis.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Classic "Bible bending" when both sides -- both the Bible believing Christians AND the evolutionist professors of Hebrew and OT studies in all "world class" universities notice your Bible bending - trying to ignore the obvious when it comes to "the kind of literature that it is" in the case of Gen 1-11.

the above assertion that the text of the bible allows only an interpretation at odds with evolution was written by a human who bears such unmistakeable evidence of evolution as a vestigial tail and vestigial ear wiggling muscles and vestigial, non working vitamin c gene and many other such traces of his evolutionary past.

Hence, he is telling all that the Bible is not to be trusted, although he thinks he is showing that all of reality, instead, is not to be trusted.

 

[BobRyan]

the above assertion that the text of the bible allows only an interpretation at odds with evolution was written by a human

Here is more "data" written by humans "admitting" to the glaringly obvious point regarding the "kind of literature" that Gen 1- 11 is ... as "literature".

both Bible believing Christians and also the atheist evolutionist professors of Hebrew and OT studies can see clearly -- apparently.


We had some T.E. posts trying to 'wish this away' recently - but the facts remain.


Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
[FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================


The Bible is to be trusted - blind faith evolutionism is not to be trusted.

When the T.E. is confronted with this glaringly obvious choice - they will always choose "well then the Bible is to be bent -- or not trusted"

who bears such unmistakeable evidence of evolution as a vestigial tail and vestigial ear wiggling muscles and vestigial, non working vitamin c gene and many other such traces of his evolutionary past.

Hence, he is telling all that the Bible is not to be trusted, although he thinks he is showing that all of reality, instead, is not to be trusted.

 

[Root of Jesse]

This is classic miracle denial. If everything is a miracle there is nothing significant about Christ's miracles or his resurrection. They would be neither signs nor wonders if they are identical to the normative processes we see every day.

Then that's your supposition, not mine. Therefore, your problem, not mine. If you want to classify miracles, go ahead.

You're conflating God's upholdings with God's special acts. God upholds all processes, but can also bypass normative processes when He wises to, which is what we call miracles. To call every event a miracle, is actually a denial of miracles, and even a denial of the miracle of the resurrection.

So saying that every act of God is a special act is somehow conflating God's acts? Ha.

This is yet another pitfall of denying the authority of the Word of God starting in Genesis.

That would be true, if I was denying the authority of the Word of God. In fact, I uphold the authority of all God's Word. Both spoken and written. What I question is how Man(kind) interpret's what God said. And I go further and say that any "science" that sets aside God's hand in it is false science.

 

[Calminian]

Then that's your supposition, not mine. Therefore, your problem, not mine.....

I'm merely telling you what the Bible says about signs and wonders. I don't see how that's a problem for me.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Here is more "data" written by humans "admitting" to the glaringly obvious point regarding the "kind of literature" that Gen 1- 11 is ... as "literature".

both Bible believing Christians and also the atheist evolutionist professors of Hebrew and OT studies can see clearly -- apparently.


We had some T.E. posts trying to 'wish this away' recently - but the facts remain.


Originally Posted by BobRyan ============================================
[FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.
================================


The Bible is to be trusted - blind faith evolutionism is not to be trusted.

When the T.E. is confronted with this glaringly obvious choice - they will always choose "well then the Bible is to be bent -- or not trusted"

The above denial of the truth of evolution was written by a human with thousands of DNA markers showing a past of retroviral inserts. Strangely, most of them are shared with other species such as chimpanzees and gorillas and bonoboes . . . proof of the evolutionary relationship between these species and us.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Since the bible is a book . then it cannot be reliable or unreliable . however .. people who read the book can be reliable or unreliable .

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Jesus is a person, The Father is a Person, the Holy Spirit who indwells Christians is a person . this is only reliable .

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

No not in the sense of the classical definition of miracles. Natural processes were brought about by miracles, but they are now normative processes. They're sustained and upheld by God, but not special acts of God. They are normative and uniform and repeating, while miracles are special non-uniform non-repeating.

All processes are upheld by God, such as births, heartbeats and death. They are repeating normative observable processes. Resurrections from the dead, creation of wine from water, on the other hand, are not normative, nor repeatable for observational purposes. They are miracles.

Makes sense?

That makes perfect sense. The way I put it is to say the things God does all the time in the same way we call the laws of science. The things God does on occasion in a different way we call a miracle. Its all God.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You do whoever complain strenuously if a post appears that shows you opposing the creationist model and arguing in favor of evolutionism's "need" to bend the genesis historic account.

Huh? Oh, however...I do not oppose the creationist model. I do not oppose the evolutionist model, either. What I oppose is any model of evolution which leaves God out. Frankly, I don't care much how God did it. I care THAT He did it. I leave others to the minutiae. But saying that evolution couldn't have happened is putting limits on God, and God has no limits. This is true whether evolution happened in 6 24-hour days, or whatever time-span it took. But some evolution took place, because first God created the universe, then he created the sun and moon. There was an evolution between the creation of the universe, and the creation of the sun and moon. Then he created the earth which was without form and void, then it became filled with everything. That is evolution, just as much as an acorn is an oak tree, or an embryo is a child.

Classic T.E. -- obviously.



I have never rejected the fact that T.E.'s have the "need" to bend the Bible and that atheist evolutionists 'do not', in fact I often affirm that point.

Why suppose that I reject what I constantly affirm?

in Christ,

Bob

But you still do not see...

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'm merely telling you what the Bible says about signs and wonders. I don't see how that's a problem for me.

What's the difference between signs and wonders, and miracles? Why do you think John's gospel has no parables or miracles, as the three synoptics do?

The problem is that you think I deny miracles. I don't. So the problem is with you.

 

[Calminian]

What's the difference between signs and wonders, and miracles? Why do you think John's gospel has no parables or miracles, as the three synoptics do?

The problem is that you think I deny miracles. I don't. So the problem is with you.

If you believe all events in the world are miracles, you are effectively denying miracles, for you make no distinction between a miracle and natural event.

 

[Calminian]

That makes perfect sense. The way I put it is to say the things God does all the time in the same way we call the laws of science. The things God does on occasion in a different way we call a miracle. Its all God.

There you go. We agree.

 

[Root of Jesse]

If you believe all events in the world are miracles, you are effectively denying miracles, for you make no distinction between a miracle and natural event.

There's that silly problem of yours again. Natural events are miracles. Procreation is a miracle. Just because you can explain some part of it doesn't mean it's not a miracle. I know the mechanics of breathing, but if you dig down to it, God causes our every breath. Anything and everything that God does is a miracle. But if you want to say I'm denying miracles, go ahead. I believe that those who try to explain away miracles such as manna in the dessert and the like with science are the ones denying miracles. Or those who think that Jesus didn't really multiply the loaves and fishes, he just got everyone to share what they had. I guess we have a different view. I see miracles every day when I go to Mass. I see bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus. If you think that's denying miracles, move on.

 

[Calminian]

There's that silly problem of yours again. Natural events are miracles. ...

Yes, this is a denial of miracles. You make no distinction between a natural event and a miraculous event like the Resurrection. You're actually getting into areas of essential christianity with this view.