Is the Bible wrong?

[Apos]

So, accourding to John, the DaVinci code is true and has never been falsified. An interpretation of it may have been, but it's infaliable.


So John: where exactly are the corners of the earth located? Where are the pillars on which the dome of the sky and earth rest?

 

[Asimov]

A good place to start would be in the beginning. Science now believes that there was a beginning, just like the Bible says there was. So in the very first sentance in the Bible, science verifys the truthfullness of there being a beginning.

What beginning?

 

[Doctrine1st]

According to Talk Origin: "the underlying theme of the first book of Genesis can't be scientifically proven or disproven". http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

Because the Bible can not be "proven or disproven", then evolutionists have to create strawman arguements and try to falsify their own strawman. Their favorite is to make up their own YEC theory and then they try to falsify their strawmen version of the theory. I see them do this over and over on this forum like a broken record.

Why don't people just accept the Bible is true. Any attempt they make to try and falsify it, has failed. Yet the Bible tells us why there are scoffers: 2 Peter 3:3 "knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts" They are scoffers because they do not want to live right before God. Peter tells us they want to live according to their own lusts. They do not want to walk in the light, instead they want to walk in darkness.

John 3:19-20
And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. [20] For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

The Bible isn't wrong, it's just the people who make claims about it who are wrong.

 

[Abongil]

The Bible isn't wrong, it's just the people who make claims about it who are wrong.

That doesnt mean it is right either...

 

[Doctrine1st]

That doesnt mean it is right either...

It's an anthology of books written by a civilization past; explaining why things are the way they are through an understanding from the past. In that sense it is right. However, as the Jewish adage of that day said, “One who translates a verse literally is misrepresenting the text, but one who adds anything of his own is a blasphemer.” They wrote meaning where, mythology, prose, proverbs, was a way to impart meaning in that era. So in many occasions were right, but to take it literally forces one to make wrong claims about it.

Ghee I hope that made sense.

 

[Doctrine1st]

Here are seven rules of Bible interpretation. Usually when there is a problem then one of these rules has been broken.

Here are the seven rules:
1) The rule of DEFINITION: What does the word mean? Any study of Scripture must begin with a study of words. Define your terms and then keep to the terms defined. The interpreter should conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words. This quite often may require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood. A couple of good examples of this are the Greek words "allos" and "heteros". Both are usually translated as "another" in English - yet "allos" literally means "another of the same type" and "heteros" means "another of a different type."
2) The rule of USAGE: It must be remembered that the Old Testament was written originally by, to and for Jews. The words and idioms must have been intelligible to them - just as the words of Christ when talking to them must have been. The majority of the New Testament likewise was written in a milieu of Greco-Roman (and to a lesser extent Jewish) culture and it is important to not impose our modern usage into our interpretation. It is not worth much to interpret a great many phrases and histories if one's interpretations are shaded by pre-conceived notions and cultural biases, thereby rendering an inaccurate and ineffectual lesson.
3) The rule of CONTEXT: The meaning must be gathered from the context. Every word you read must be understood in the light of the words that come before and after it. Many passages will not be understood at all, or understood incorrectly, without the help afforded by the context. A good example of this is the Mormon practice of using 1 Cor. 8:5b: "...for there be gods many and lords many..." as a "proof text" of their doctrine of polytheism. However, a simple reading of the whole verse in the context of the whole chapter (e.g. where Paul calls these gods "so-called"), plainly demonstrates that Paul is not teaching polytheism.
4) The rule of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The interpreter must have some awareness of the life and society of the times in which the Scripture was written. The spiritual principle will be timeless but often can't be properly appreciated without some knowledge of the background. If the interpreter can have in his mind what the writer had in his mind when he wrote - without adding any excess baggage from the interpreter's own culture or society - then the true thought of the Scripture can be captured resulting in an accurate interpretation. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Our only interest in the past is for the light it throws upon the present."
5) The rule of LOGIC: Interpretation is merely logical reasoning. When interpreting Scripture, the use of reason is everywhere to be assumed. Does the interpretation make sense? The Bible was given to us in the form of human language and therefore appeals to human reason - it invites investigation. It is to be interpreted as we would any other volume: applying the laws of language and grammatical analysis. As Bernard Ramm said:
"What is the control we use to weed out false theological speculation? Certainly the control is logic and evidence... interpreters who have not had the sharpening experience of logic...may have improper notions of implication and evidence. Too frequently such a person uses a basis of appeal that is a notorious violation of the laws of logic and evidence." (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, Boston:W. A. Wilde, 1956)
6) The rule of PRECEDENT: We must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent. Just as a judge's chief occupation is the study of previous cases, so must the interpreter use precedents in order to determine whether they really support an alleged doctrine. Consider the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12 who were called "noble" because they searched the Scriptures to determine if what Paul taught them was true.
7) The rule of INFERENCE: An inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a con- clusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one proposition from another proposition. Such inferential facts or propositions are sufficiently binding when their truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. Competent evidence means such evidence as the nature of the thing to be proved admits. Satisfactory evidence means that amount of proof which would ordinarily satisfy an unprejudiced mind beyond a reasonable doubt. Jesus used this rule when he proved the resurrection of the dead to the unbelieving Sadducees in Matt. 22:23-33.
Learning these seven rules and properly applying them will help keep any interpreter from making errors and will hopefully alleviate many of the disagreements unfortunately present in Christianity today.
"A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: to understand a proverb, and the interpretation." (Prov. 1:5,6)

If, truly and only if, the Christian Bible study groups around the world actually adhered to this. This is far from today's Christian exegesis.

 

[JohnR7]

So, accourding to John, the DaVinci code

When did I ever say anything about the "DaVinci code"? Do you guys just make this stuff up as you go along?

 

[chaoschristian]

According to Talk Origin: "the underlying theme of the first book of Genesis can't be scientifically proven or disproven".

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

Because the Bible can not be "proven or disproven", then evolutionists have to create strawman arguements and try to falsify their own strawman. Their favorite is to make up their own YEC theory and then they try to falsify their strawmen version of the theory. I see them do this over and over on this forum like a broken record.

Why don't people just accept the Bible is true. Any attempt they make to try and falsify it, has failed. Yet the Bible tells us why there are scoffers: 2 Peter 3:3 "knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts" They are scoffers because they do not want to live right before God. Peter tells us they want to live according to their own lusts. They do not want to walk in the light, instead they want to walk in darkness.

John 3:19-20
And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. [20] For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

Scripture contains facts; the truth of scripture is not contained within its facts.

The truth of scripture cannot be proven or disproven through scientific means because science does not deal with the metaphysical messages of scripture.

Accordingly, scientific conclusions cannot be verified or falsified through scripture, because scripture is not concerned with nature in an emperical and material sense.

 

[Timyone]

lol i havent read any replies, and im guessing no one will read mine, but yeah.

how was the genesis book written? did the writers of the time write in fact?
when was it written down.
ive heard one theory that the genesis book was written as sort of a narrative of their time, and may not have been the same sort of format as today, as in a description etc.
but yeah

 

[chaoschristian]

lol i havent read any replies, and im guessing no one will read mine, but yeah.

how was the genesis book written? did the writers of the time write in fact?
when was it written down.
ive heard one theory that the genesis book was written as sort of a narrative of their time, and may not have been the same sort of format as today, as in a description etc.
but yeah

Good questions.

Here are some more:

Was Genesis written as one cohesive whole as we would view a modern novel, or is it a collection of stories grouped together around general themse?

Are the stories of Genesis intended to be scientific and historical fact? Or are they meant to explain and provide rationalizations for certain cultural and/or universal truths?

Are the stories of Genesis written all in one genre and style, or are they written in many genres and styles?

 

[LittleNipper]

lol i havent read any replies, and im guessing no one will read mine, but yeah.

how was the genesis book written? did the writers of the time write in fact?
when was it written down.
ive heard one theory that the genesis book was written as sort of a narrative of their time, and may not have been the same sort of format as today, as in a description etc.
but yeah

It is generally accepted that Moses wrote Genesis, as he was was led of the Holy Spirit and through direct communications with GOD. It is written in a style that is familar to the culture of the time. Example, the creation story begins on a grand scale in Chapter 1. In Chapter 2 the scope is focused on man. Some Westerners try to suggest that there are 2 creation stories, when in fact a Middle Easterner would recognize only one.

 

[KerrMetric]

It is generally accepted that Moses wrote Genesis.

This is not generally accepted in the academic world. It perhaps is by Christian lay people who work as street sweepers, plumbers, accountants and car mechanics but then they aren't historians or experts in ancient literature.

In academia it is generally accepted that Moses is not the author and was at best an editor of earlier myth.

 

[Timyone]

It is generally accepted that Moses wrote Genesis, as he was was led of the Holy Spirit and through direct communications with GOD. It is written in a style that is familar to the culture of the time. Example, the creation story begins on a grand scale in Chapter 1. In Chapter 2 the scope is focused on man. Some Westerners try to suggest that there are 2 creation stories, when in fact a Middle Easterner would recognize only one.

lol yeah
the first fiew books are traditionally by him.
now where is that bit about him dying..

 

[Timyone]

This is not generally accepted in the academic world. It perhaps is by Christian lay people who work as street sweepers, plumbers, accountants and car mechanics but then they aren't historians or experts in ancient literature.

In academia it is generally accepted that Moses is not the author and was at best an editor of earlier myth.

nah it is argued.
not accepted that he wasnt the author.
but nice work with the big notin ya self

 

[KerrMetric]

nah it is argued.
not accepted that he wasnt the author.
but nice work with the big notin ya self

Finding acadaemic historians that accept Moses as author is pretty hard these days in comparison to the non-author crowd. I agree there is dissent but the phrase "generally accepted" would apply to the non-Moses authorship group.

 

[Timyone]

heres my study bibles point of view (lol yeah i know im studying a bachelor in theology, and should have a smarter soundin source but its not really my style
historically jews and christians have held that moses was the author (compilor) of the first 5 books(penteuch)

but yeah in the last couple of hundred years people have decided that there may be 4 sources that its all taken from (lol espescially as his death is written about in one of the books?!)

but intensive literary and archiological research has tended to support the mosaic orthership.

so maybe it was the four sources or moses or some one else, but its definatelly not a well accepted fact that he didnt write them, theres a heap of arguing
(beleive me ive sat through classes about it all?!

 

[TexasSky]

I am curious.

I see, over and over on these forums, that evolutionists deny that evolution teaches such things as "monkey became man" or "fish became man."

Yet, when I go to professors who actually teach evolution they tell me that even though they do not usually carry the teaching of evolution back that far, it is, indeed, part of the overall theory.

Since many of you deny it is even part of the theory, where DO you cut off your theories of evolution? Do you simply say, "All cats evolved from greater cats?" Do you believe that all life has a "common" fossil-ancestor? Do you believe in primordial soup or not?

Follow your theory back as far as you can, logically, and tell me what you consider the origin of MAN to be?

 

[Timyone]

my bibles copy right is some where between 73 and 84 thow,

 

[TexasSky]

heres my study bibles point of view (lol yeah i know im studying a bachelor in theology, and should have a smarter soundin source but its not really my style
historically jews and christians have held that moses was the author (compilor) of the first 5 books(penteuch)

but yeah in the last couple of hundred years people have decided that there may be 4 sources that its all taken from (lol espescially as his death is written about in one of the books?!)

but intensive literary and archiological research has tended to support the mosaic orthership.

so maybe it was the four sources or moses or some one else, but its definatelly not a well accepted fact that he didnt write them, theres a heap of arguing
(beleive me ive sat through classes about it all?!

You're right.
The majority of historians, Jewish, Christian and secular attribute Moses as the author. There are a few people who disagree, but I bet if we dig hard enough we'll find people who say Jefferson didn't write the US Constitution too.

 

[dawiyd]

I am curious.

Follow your theory back as far as you can, logically, and tell me what you consider the origin of MAN to be?

According to Hovind a rock.