Is the Bible reliable?

[Sword of the Lord]

Couple of things. You assume God operates in literal 24 hour days. And do you believe Jesus is literally present in the Eucharist?

 

[BobRyan]

Couple of things. You assume God operates in literal 24 hour days. And do you believe Jesus is literally present in the Eucharist?

God created the solar system. He is not ignorant of something like the rotation of our planet and is fully capable of describing events that happen in time so that we can have an accurate understanding of historic events.

-- is that what you are questioning?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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.

There are those on the other hand who might argue something like --

Don't be too hasty about that - scientists have been creating planets for some time and and then manufacturing life on them just as they say rocks alone can do. And they have a video showing what God "really did" in Genesis 1 vs all the fake stuff he put in the Bible - so we can all see it first hand.

Are you sure you want to go with the Bible instead of them??

 

[BobRyan]

History? Genesis chapter one is not history it is poetry and theology .

Until you read Genesis 1 and "notice the details".

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



Genesis 1 is not a poem. It does not use verse forms. It is written in the standard literary dialect of narrative prose. It is completely devoid of poetic diction, imagery, figures of speech.


Secondly, Genesis 1 is straight-forward narrative. It talks about the real world, completely familiar to us. It itemizes the cosmic elements and terrestrial phenomena such as we observe everyday — sky, land, sea, heavenly lights, vegetation, fish, birds, and animals, including humankind. The terms “sky”, “land”, “grass”, etc., have their simple meanings. The language is not mythological, allegorical, parabolical. Genesis 1 states that God made all these things. The story is as simple as can be, straight-forward, matter-of-fact.




Thirdly, Genesis 1 is followed by other stories which read like successive chapters in a book. The narrative is continuous, with transitions rather than breaks; and it goes right on through the accounts of the patriarchs, the careers of Moses and Joshua, followed by Judges and Kings. Genesis through Kings is a single, continuous, gigantic chronicle; and all of it is the same kind of writing. It is a unified history of God and his world. As the first part, and an integral part, of that history, Genesis 1 itself is also history.


The style is simple, yet grand; the impression is majestic, overwhelming. It is a marvelous combination of plain narrative and high art. The fact that it is history should not shut our minds against its artistry. The fact that it is artistic should not soften our confidence in its truthfulness as history.

All historic accounts provide a timeline, sequence, appeal to observable elements like people, places, things, sky, land, sea. The Genesis 1:1-2:3 historic narrative being no exception.

Just stating the obvious.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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..........

Some irrefutable facts when it comes to Genesis 1:2-2:3 and the stories of evolutionism.

1. Both the sequence AND the 7 day timeline in Genesis one are not the way that evolutionists of any stripe present evolutionism in science classes. No science text book uses it as the way to describe evolutionism’s story on origins.
2. The 7 day timeline in Genesis 1:2-2:3 is present in legal code in Ex 20:8-11 “six days you shall labor…for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth the seas and all that is in them”.
3. Moses was not trying to teach Darwinian evolutionism to the newly freed slaves from Egypt at mount Sinai. The idea had not been invented and the newly freed slave so Egypt would not have inserted Darwinian evolutionism into the historic narrative – given to them in Genesis 1:1 – 2:3.
4. Seven days is too short a period for all Genus on the planet to come about by any mechanism other than divine fiat creation. So then no development via competition, predation, disease, extinction in so short a timeline.
5. Having the sun and moon created on day 4 while plants are created on day 3 is a sequence that is never presented in any naturalistic explanation of life on earth or our entire solar system.
6. The more popular Christian efforts to eisegete evolutionism into Genesis 1 was not popular at all in Christianity prior to the 1844 document by Darwin promoting his brand of evolutionism. This is not a coincidence.
7. Christians that believe that the historic narrative form in Genesis 1:2-2:3 is to be accepted as an accurate historic account of the origin of all life on planet earth – also accept the historic narratives of the virgin birth and resurrection of Christ as accurate – are the same groups that declare that Song of Solomon, Revelation and Daniel are using symbols and figures of speech and make the same claims about other texts such as the book of Psalms.
8. The Gospel idea that “God is love” is preserved in a 7 day timeline that does not allow for life to evolve via starvation, predation, competition, extinction based natural pressures for “selection”. Genesis 1 states that the animals ate only vegetation which supports a violence-free starting condition consistent with “God IS Love” scenarios.
9. The loss of paradise at the entrance of sin into the world – in the context of the 8 points above – is a huge loss and creates the impression that returning to the starting point would be “ideal”. It is consistent with a Gospel story about “restoration” and returning to Paradise. And this fits perfectly with the idea that God the Son was even willing to die in our place to restore all that was lost to mankind.
10. Evolutionists today do not propose that returning to the cave-dwelling hominid days of avoiding predators, or going back to the time of dinosaurs is “ideal living” for humans. The idea that God would need to die for humanity because some one of 1000’s of hominids living long ages ago ‘had some bad thought’ while sitting in his cave bashing in his daily catch of monkey-brains – makes a mockery of the Gospel. And is generally to be “never thought about “ when promoting blind faith evolutionism as a feature of Genesis 1.
11. Efforts to marry Genesis 1:2-2:3 to the Bible argue that the “Details” of this historic narrative are the “least to be trusted” while broader themes are to be accepted. While at the same time details in other historic narratives such as those providing the account of the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ – should be trusted no matter that atheists would not accept them as physical reality or historic fact.
12. The Legal code of Ex 20:8-11 and the doctrinal statements of the NT that appeal to “six days you shall labor…for in six days the Lord made” and “it was Adam who was created first” and “by one man sin came into the world” (i.e. the “least to be trusted details” of the Genesis account) are presented and appealed to in the NT as the basis for doctrine and in scripture as the basis for Legal code -- as noted in those examples.
13. There are many atheist evolutionists today – such as Dawkins, Meyers and those in the past such as Provine and Darwin that all admit – that starting out as Christians and then coming to the point of faith in evolutionism “no matter what” – lead them to discard Christianity. Many Bible believing Christians today admit to the same blatant contradiction between the Bible account of origins and evolutionism’s story for origins.
14. Atheism could not survive with the Genesis 1:2-2:3 historic account as its story on origins – but it can thrive on evolutionism’s story for origins – just fine. It “needs it”.
15. Atheists and Bible believing Christians are on record noting that if the beginning of the Bible is not to be trusted – then so also is the rest of the text. So for example John’s Gospel account starting with the creation fact in John is in doubt and the future judgment in Rev 14:6-7 based on the creation account is in doubt, as would be every other account/detail/fact that you might wish to object to.

 

[BobRyan]

Can't edit that post - or else I would separate the numbered items.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

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

This.

 

[Sword of the Lord]

God created the solar system. He is not ignorant of something like the rotation of our planet and is fully capable of describing events that happen in time so that we can have an accurate understanding of historic events.

-- is that what you are questioning?

in Christ,

Bob

Psalm 90:4
4
For a thousand years in Your sight
Are like yesterday, which passed,
And like a watch in the night.

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

You didn't answer my question about the Eucharist. Do you believe Jesus is literally present - body and blood - in the Eucharist?

 

[Restoresmysoul]

I think perhaps that Atheists can be told that the bible speaks in mysteries but also has plain to see truth in it as well. Adam and Eve were real people. Was the tree of life a real tree or merely symbolic? Perhaps it was both. We are taught to get baptized in order to receive remission of sins, should i take that as symbolic? Am i washed by the Word or by water? Jesus is the bread of Life, is he actually a piece of bread? No but Jesus was areal person who actually lived and died, and rose again.You cannot expect an atheist to believe in the Word if God doesn't allow them to see, correct? Perhaps prayer is needed for them.

But why should we debate and argue?

1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because[a] your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

 

[BobRyan]

I think perhaps that Atheists can be told that the bible speaks in mysteries but also has plain to see truth in it as well. Adam and Eve were real people. Was the tree of life a real tree or merely symbolic? Perhaps it was both. We are taught to get baptized in order to receive remission of sins, should i take that as symbolic? Am i washed by the Word or by water? Jesus is the bread of Life, is he actually a piece of bread? No but Jesus was areal person who actually lived and died, and rose again.You cannot expect an atheist to believe in the Word if God doesn't allow them to see, correct? Perhaps prayer is needed for them.

But why should we debate and argue?

1 Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because[a] your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.

If the tree of life is real - in Gen 1 then it is real in Rev 2 and in Rev 22.. indeed - it is real so also is God real and the Earth real and Adam real and Eve real.

in Romans 5 Christ is the second Adam - so in that case Adam is being used as a symbol or type.

In the case of Romans 9 and then end of Romans 2 - Israel and jews are real but then Gentiles (who are also real) are said to be Jews (Romans 2), and also said to be Israel in Romans 9.

So then real things can have additional application made to them for spiritual teaching purposes.

No doubt.

But that does not destroy the reality of the real things to which some added spiritual idea is applied.

This gets me back to that 15 point irrefutable details list above.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Restoresmysoul]

If the tree of life is real - in Gen 1 then it is real in Rev 2 and in Rev 22.. indeed - it is real so also is God real and the Earth real and Adam real and Eve real.

in Romans 5 Christ is the second Adam - so in that case Adam is being used as a symbol or type.

In the case of Romans 9 and then end of Romans 2 - Israel and jews are real but then Gentiles (who are also real) are said to be Jews (Romans 2), and also said to be Israel in Romans 9.

So then real things can have additional application made to them for spiritual teaching purposes.

No doubt.

But that does not destroy the reality of the real things to which some added spiritual idea is applied.

This gets me back to that 15 point irrefutable details list above.

in Christ,

Bob

Thanks Bob.

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan

God created the solar system. He is not ignorant of something like the rotation of our planet and is fully capable of describing events that happen in time so that we can have an accurate understanding of historic events.

-- is that what you are questioning?

​

​

Psalm 90:4
4
For a thousand years in Your sight
Are like yesterday, which passed,
And like a watch in the night.

2 Peter 3:8
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

You didn't answer my question about the Eucharist. Do you believe Jesus is literally present - body and blood - in the Eucharist?

In my 15 point list if irrefutable facts above I include the fact that people who take the historic narrative of the virgin birth and the resurrection of Christ and the 7 day creation week listed in legal code in Ex 20:11 and in historic narrative in Gen 1:2-2:3 also admit that the book of Daniel and book of Rev and Song of Solomon contain a lot of symbols and imagery.

In the Gospels Christ is "the good Shepherd" and also "The door" John 15 and also "the vine" John 15 and also in John 6 "bread that came down out of heaven".

Are you saying that we should ignore those symbols if we take any historic narrative in the Bible as being factually accurate?

In Matt 16 Jesus said we are to "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" which in the over-liteteralist Pov was said to be "don't buy bread from Pharisees" and Christ rebuked them for that.

In John 6 the over-literalists thought Christ wanted them to bite him so they left. In John 6 Christ rebuked them saying that "literal flesh is worthless it is my WORD that has spirit and life".

Showing again the symbolism used.

Ps 90:4 is not a historic narrative by anyone that we know of

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Yes....personally I believe that the bible can prove itself... that's my story and I'm sticking to it. It has proven itself to me in every instance even when scripture has my back up against the wall I have trusted in the HS to bring about the truth and it always has. That is a personal testimony because not having read any posts for 2 days because of being away to visit my mom I know I may have to back up some of my beliefs in the next few days ( maybe not hopefully) but I don't have to worry that scripture cannot do that. I know it can.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Just read what Genesis chapter one says. It is no history. It isn't even vaguely like history.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.
And God said,

"Let there be light"​

; and there was light. And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

And God said,

"Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."​

And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

And God said,

"Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear."​

And it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. And God said,

"Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth."​

And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.

And God said,

"Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth."​

And it was so. And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

And God said,

"Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens."​

So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying,

"Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."​

And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

And God said,

"Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds."​

And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Then God said,

"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."​

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them, and God said to them,

"Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."​

And God said,

"Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food."​

And it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.​

(Genesis 1:1-31 RSV)

No history looks even vaguely like the litany of creation recorded above. It's clearly poetic and clearly aimed at the pagan gods of the cultures surrounding the Israelites. Even in early Christianity the way Christians read Genesis one was not as a history and not as an account of God's method of forming material creation.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

No history looks even vaguely like the litany of creation recorded above. It's clearly poetic and clearly aimed at the pagan gods of the cultures surrounding the Israelites. Even in early Christianity the way Christians read Genesis one was not as a history and not as an account of God's method of forming material creation.

That may be possible, but if its true then i think that its both that and an actual history as well..

 

[MoreCoffee]

That may be possible, but if its true then i think that its both that and an actual history as well..

Your stated position is absurd; one cannot both be reading a poem and a literal history. And even if one were reading a poem that related historical events then it is still wrong to call it a history. Homer's Iliad is a poem and it relates something that very likely took place in history but nobody thinks of the Iliad as a history.

 

[RileyG]

I take the bible from a contextual approach- meaning I do not see it as historically or geographically factual, but the overall message is true.

For example: Jonah was about the Israelites are their attitude towards non-Israelites. The Israelites needed to stop be so prejudice against non-Israelites and realize God still loves them. etc.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Your stated position is absurd; one cannot both be reading a poem and a literal history. And even if one were reading a poem that related historical events then it is still wrong to call it a history. Homer's Iliad is a poem and it relates something that very likely took place in history but nobody thinks of the Iliad as a history.

With all due respect Homer is not scripture. And the creation is not just a poem, it is fact as well. Why is that so hard to believe? Adam and Eve were real and so was the story of creation.

 

[MoreCoffee]

With all due respect Homer is not scripture. And the creation is not just a poem, it is fact as well. Why is that so hard to believe? Adam and Eve were real and so was the story of creation.

With all due respect homer is scripture because all that the word scripture means (it is a Latin derived word) is writings. Homer is not part of Christian canonical Holy Scripture. But Homer's Iliad is written poetry and hence is scripture in the broad sense of the word.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

With all due respect homer is scripture because all that the word scripture means (it is a Latin derived word) is writings. Homer is not part of Christian canonical Holy Scripture. But Homer's Iliad is written poetry and hence is scripture in the broad sense of the word.

You knew what i meant. Do we now have to put holy in front of everything so you dont get confused?