Is the Bible reliable?

[MoreCoffee]

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

I knew what you wrote and I could guess what you meant; the two are not the same. But passing over that we can return to the core issue. Genesis chapter one is not a history and even if one conceives it to be a poem about historical events it is still wrong to call it a history.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Genesis chapter one is not a history and even if one conceives it to be a poem about historical events it is still wrong to call it a history.

That's just your fallible opinion based on incomplete knowledge of Gods truth. Im not sure anyone could make that claim, they may theorize but surely could never prove it.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Some people believe the Lords supper magically turns into real blood and real flesh, but some people also seem to have trouble believing the story of creation.

 

[MoreCoffee]

That's just your fallible opinion based on incomplete knowledge of Gods truth. Im not sure anyone could make that claim, they may theorize but surely could never prove it.

No, it is my fallible opinion - backed by almost two thousand years of scholarship - that rejects the naive literal reading of Genesis chapter one as if it were a prose history. Clearly it is not prose. Clearly it is not a history. Furthermore you're making claims about the state of my knowledge when you say "based on incomplete knowledge of Gods truth" whereas I contend that the statements made in your posts give ample evidence to all of our readers that those statements are not true.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Some people believe the Lords supper magically turns into real blood and real flesh, but some people also seem to have trouble believing the story of creation.

But Christians from the ancient churches, and many other Christians too, believe that the bread and the wine after consecration are the body and the blood of Christ just as Jesus Christ said they are. I'd quote the last supper passages from the synoptic gospels but that isn't really necessary is it?

 

[Restoresmysoul]

But Christians from the ancient churches, and many other Christians too, believe that the bread and the wine after consecration are the body and the blood of Christ just as Jesus Christ said they are. I'd quote the last supper passages from the synoptic gospels but that isn't really necessary is it?

Why then can you not believe the story of creation? Should we believe that Christs flesh was made from bread? Does the bread taste like flesh or does it taste like bread?

 

[Restoresmysoul]

No, it is my fallible opinion - backed by almost two thousand years of scholarship - that rejects the naive literal reading of Genesis chapter one as if it were a prose history. Clearly it is not prose. Clearly it is not a history. Furthermore you're making claims about the state of my knowledge when you say "based on incomplete knowledge of Gods truth" whereas I contend that the statements made in your posts give ample evidence to all of our readers that those statements are not true.

Im suggesting that we all have incomplete knowledge, and this is true.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why then can you not believe the story of creation? Should we believe that Christs flesh was made from bread? Does the bread taste like flesh or does it taste like bread?

The last supper dialogues are written in the synoptic gospels and the gospels are not poems as is Genesis chapter one. The gospels are not history in the modern sense but they are also not poetry. They are religious biographies, memoirs of the apostles concerning their earthly time with Jesus Christ. They are intended to teach doctrine and the last supper dialogues are specifically intended to teach doctrine about the last supper.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Im suggesting that we all have incomplete knowledge, and this is true.

You can speak for yourself but you cannot possibly know how much or how little your interlocutor knows.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

The last supper dialogues are written in the synoptic gospels and the gospels are not poems as is Genesis chapter one. The gospels are not history in the modern sense but they are also not poetry. They are religious biographies, memoirs of the apostles concerning their earthly time with Jesus Christ. They are intended to teach doctrine and the last supper dialogues are specifically intended to teach doctrine about the last supper.

Just your opinion. Many of us believe Adam and Eve were real, we also believe that the story of creation is real, and so have many Scholars throughout the ages also believed this. Many also believe that the Lords supper is symbolic, it doesn't actually turn into flesh and blood. This is not unorthodox at all.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Just your opinion. Many of us believe Adam and Eve were real, we also believe that the story of creation is real, and so have many Scholars throughout the ages also believed this. Many also believe that the Lords supper is symbolic, it doesn't actually turn into flesh and blood. This is not unorthodox at all.

It is not "just" my opinion that the gospels are not poems and that the gospels are memoirs of the apostles, it is the scholarly consensus about the nature of the gospels and it is the testimony of the early church saints about the gospels. Specifically, the synoptic gospels were regarded from the first century onwards as the memoirs of the apostles about their time with Jesus while he was on earth. Genesis chapter one is regarded as poetry as is evidenced by nearly every bible translation into English since the mid twentieth century.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

You can speak for yourself but you cannot possibly know how much or how little your interlocutor knows.

I can to a certain degree, i can know that my interlocutor doesn't possess complete knowledge.


Romans 12:3 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!

1 Co 13:12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

It is not "just" my opinion that the gospels are not poems and that the gospels are memoirs of the apostles, it is the scholarly consensus about the nature of the gospels and it is the testimony of the early church saints about the gospels. Specifically, the synoptic gospels were regarded from the first century onwards as the memoirs of the apostles about their time with Jesus while he was on earth. Genesis chapter one is regarded as poetry as is evidenced by nearly every bible translation into English since the mid twentieth century.

You are misrepresenting my words, please go back and address the specific points that i referred to.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I can to a certain degree, i can know that my interlocutor doesn't possess complete knowledge.


Romans 12:3 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out!

1 Co 13:12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

If that is your stated position then why bring it up since it applies to your statements as much as to mine yet you wrote "That's just your fallible opinion based on incomplete knowledge of Gods truth." but that applies equally to what you wrote if your current claim about the intended meaning of those words is true. Thus making that observation is to make a completely irrelevant comment akin to saying "neither you nor I understand what Genesis chapter one is really about because we're both in the same boat as far as incomplete knowledge goes".

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Im suggesting that we all have incomplete knowledge, and this is true.

If that is your stated position then why bring it up since it applies to your statements as much as to mine yet you wrote "That's just your fallible opinion based on incomplete knowledge of Gods truth." but that applies equally to what you wrote if your current claim about the intended meaning of those words is true. Thus making that observation is to make a completely irrelevant comment akin to saying "neither you nor I understand what Genesis chapter one is really about because we're both in the same boat as far as incomplete knowledge goes".

I was specifically referring to your particular words at that time, but i also admitted that we all possess incomplete knowledge as you can see above, highlighted in red. Why argue about it? Surely you know what i'm saying.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Just your opinion.

It is not "just" my opinion that the gospels are not poems and that the gospels are memoirs of the apostles, it is the scholarly consensus about the nature of the gospels and it is the testimony of the early church saints about the gospels. Specifically, the synoptic gospels were regarded from the first century onwards as the memoirs of the apostles about their time with Jesus while he was on earth. Genesis chapter one is regarded as poetry as is evidenced by nearly every bible translation into English since the mid twentieth century.

Many of us believe Adam and Eve were real, we also believe that the story of creation is real, and so have many Scholars throughout the ages also believed this.

What many believe is for the many to explain because I am unwilling to accept your say so as sufficient to express what "many believe". You're welcome to opine about your own beliefs and to guess what others might believe but you are not an authority about what they believe and would need to produce credible evidence about what these many believe before I'll accept it as true. The same applies to the scholars "throughout the ages". I am willing to believe that some scholars in recent centuries may have believed what you says is your belief but I am not willing to agree (without supporting evidence) that many scholars throughout the ages believe the same way that you appear to believe.

Many also believe that the Lords supper is symbolic, it doesn't actually turn into flesh and blood. This is not unorthodox at all.

I am not sure that many scholars believed in the symbol-only Lord's supper throughout the ages; perhaps many Protestant scholars from the radical reformation branch of Protestantism took that position but in the ages before Protestantism was born very few (if any) scholars took a symbol-only view.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I was specifically referring to your particular words at that time, but i also admitted that we all possess incomplete knowledge as you can see above, highlighted in red. Why argue about it? Surely you know what i'm saying.

Had I not argued the point made in posts #41 and #44 then your clarification may not have been made and had it not been made then your statement "That's just your fallible opinion based on incomplete knowledge of Gods truth." would be a kind of ad hominem or at the very least appear to be such. Now that you have clarified your intended meaning it appears that when you say "That's just your fallible opinion based on incomplete knowledge of Gods truth." you meant no more that "nobody really knows what Genesis chapter one means" and with that I would be almost in agreement.

 

[listed]

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

If I were to believe your propaganda I would have to say no the Bible is not reliable.What difference does it make what the Pope says?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think that a pope was dragged into this thread as some kind of warning against the Catholic faith based on the theory that if a pope does not agree with the doctrine of "reliability" expressed in the original post then the Catholic faith is all wrong and definitely misleading.

 

[listed]

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.

Such statements made by them are indirect ways to avoid the rules and flame saying you are not a Christian. Such is against the rules. Over time I am sure this has come to the attention of decision makers regulating the forum. Why it continues to happen is no mystery to me.