Is the Bible reliable?

[Restoresmysoul]

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.

Talking about the poster instead of the topic is against rules too

 

[elliott95]

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

I am going to bump this, if for no other reason than I actually did listen to the video.

The cogent paraphrase that still remains after a half a day or so of letting things pass through my sieve-like memory, is that the problem with literalists is that they are usually not literalist enough.

It is not enough to concentrate on the words of the Bible and an accurate translation in order to get at the literal meaning. The literal meaning also involves finding the cultural context for those words in order that we can determine what the words actually meant to the author that wrote them down, and to the audience to which they were directed.
Otherwise, we are so far removed in space and time and culture, that we really have no real idea of what the point of the story was all about in the first place.

Context is king.

We really need to educate ourselves about the stories of the Bible in the context of the times in which they were written. Otherwise, all we are doing is superimposing our twentieth century mindset on literature that had nothing to do with a twentieth century context.

Being an authentic literalist means accepting the words in the context in which they were written, and in the original context of how they would have been understood by a Bronze Age audience.
Assuredly, that has nothing to do with science or evolution or a how-to instruction manual for building a universe from a void.

 

[MKJ]

Yes, the Bible is reliable, but only if you use it correctly.

If you try and read it improperly, you will get unreliable information.

As for the idea that Genesis is meant to be a history in a thoroughly modern sense - it comes from a time when no one was writing histories at all, even the sort that appear in the ancient world, and there has always been a wide variety of opinion in the Church about how much of it is actually meant to be historically true.

So I can't see why I should not be quite happy with that state of affairs.

What does annoy me though are people that on the one hand say that faith in Christ is all we need to be saved in the next moment show what they really mean the most intense sort of Phariseeism possible when they tell us that really means faith in their own Biblical views. And I feel sorry for people who have such a fragile faith that something as beautiful as a God who can reveal himself through poetry is a threat to it.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, the Bible is reliable, but only if you use it correctly.

If you try and read it improperly, you will get unreliable information.

As for the idea that Genesis is meant to be a history in a thoroughly modern sense - it comes from a time when no one was writing histories at all, even the sort that appear in the ancient world,

Until you read Genesis 1:2-2:3 where you find a true historic narrative written to the newly freed slaved from Egypt.

Moses was not a Darwinist, not an evolutionist and neither where the freed slaves from Egypt.

His 7 day timeline was not to be doubted by them due to some supposed pre-bias-for-evolutionism.

Exegesis dictates that the meaning conveyed by Moses to his readers is what the text stated - nothing less.

The text itself does not argue against the 7 day timeline in the text.

The only arguments against it that have become popular within Christianity today - only arise after the publication of the 1844 manuscript by Darwin. Thus it is only an agenda external to the text itself that tries to bend/edit/wrench it away from its own stated timeline.

That timeline is etched into legal code in Ex 20:8-11 "six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord made".

There are many "your posts are evil" posts provide in response to the OP - and those sorts of posts are simply avoiding the details of the discussion in most cases.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Being an authentic literalist means accepting the words in the context in which they were written, and in the original context of how they would have been understood by a Bronze Age audience.
Assuredly, that has nothing to do with science or evolution or a how-to instruction manual for building a universe from a void.

My point exactly.

The 7 day timeline Moses gives in Gen 1:2-2:3 would not have been "dismissed in favor of a bias for darwinian evolutionism" by his audience of newly freed Egyptian slaves at the foot of Mt Sinai.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Tzaousios]

Moses was not a Darwinist, not an evolutionist and neither where the freed slaves from Egypt.

His 7 day timeline was not to be doubted by them due to some supposed pre-bias-for-evolutionism.

Who says that Moses was a "Darwinist," for that matter? Asserting that people actually say this establishes your premise on a fallacious anachronism.

 

[elliott95]

My point exactly.

The 7 day timeline Moses gives in Gen 1:2-2:3 would not have been "dismissed in favor of a bias for darwinian evolutionism" by his audience of newly freed Egyptian slaves at the foot of Mt Sinai.

in Christ,

Bob

Certainly not.
People who read science back into the Bible, and now the Koran, are not in any way being literalists, nor even fair to the text in any way whatsoever.

Darwinism is simply not a part of the Bible.

The relationship between man and the animals nevertheless is a major theme of the encounter with the most magnificent beast of the field, the serpent.

 

[elliott95]

Who says that Moses was a "Darwinist," for that matter? Asserting that people actually say this establishes your premise on a fallacious anachronism.

Teillard de Chardin is one Christian philospher who does something like that.
Not that I get involved in these discussions much, but there are other Christians that do try to synchronize current evolutionary theory with the Bible as well.
Muslims, with their clot of blood genesis who tie that back to scientific discoveries are involved in the same kind of thing.

'God of the gaps' in general belies that kind of methodology.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Pure speculation on your part.

By contrast the historic narrative that we find in Genesis 1 is entirely accurate and trustworthy.

All admit that Moses was not a darwinist - not an evolutionist.

Nothing in his text argues against his 7 day timeline.

Nothing inherent to his audience of newly freed slaves suggests they would have been biased against 7 days and inclined to insert in its place "long ages of undefined periods" of time.

Moses gives them legal code in the form "six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord made" Ex 20:8-11

All popular efforts to bend-wrench remake the text of Genesis 1 to say something other than its own stated 7 day timeline - come after the 1844 manuscript of Darwin -- not before. Betraying an external-to-the-text agenda.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Talking about the poster instead of the topic is against rules too

This is a key point not to be dismissed lightly.

 

[Melethiel]

Pure speculation on your part.

By contrast the historic narrative that we find in Genesis 1 is entirely accurate and trustworthy.

All admit that Moses was not a darwinist - not an evolutionist.

Nothing in his text argues against his 7 day timeline.

Nothing inherent to his audience of newly freed slaves suggests they would have been biased against 7 days and inclined to insert in its place "long ages of undefined periods" of time.

Moses gives them legal code in the form "six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord made" Ex 20:8-11

All popular efforts to bend-wrench remake the text of Genesis 1 to say something other than its own stated 7 day timeline - come after the 1844 manuscript of Darwin -- not before. Betraying an external-to-the-text agenda.

in Christ,

Bob

But you see, those of us who understand that Genesis 1 is poetry, written in the style of the creation hymns of the ancient near east, have no need to try to cram thousands of years into there. It is NOT an allegory, after all, and certainly not a science book. I fully acknowledge that within the context of the passage (talking about internal narrative here), it is talking about a literal seven days. What we are saying is that the entire passage, taken as a whole,is not literal. It is a polemic, not a history. "History" as a genre was not around until Thucydides.

 

[BobRyan]

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

Until you notice that it has all the features of historical narrative. A historic account with a timeline, units of time fully defined, events, sequence, start, middle, end a complete contiguous storyline.

And the audience - of freed slaves from Egypt would have had no prior-bias to argue against the 7 day timeline given in the historic account.

Observe.

3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.


6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.




9 Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 13 So the evening and the morning were the third day.




14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.




20 Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.” 21 So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 So the evening and the morning were the fifth day.




24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. 30 Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food”; and it was so. 31 Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.



Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His workwhich He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.
4 This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens


NKJV



Pure history in every respect - an accurate historic account with days and events laid out in sequence.

Placing "not" in the text to argue against it being a historic account is not something Moses' readers were inclined to do.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

And Moses further reminds us of the accuracy of the historic account in Gen 1:2--2:3 by this statement found in legal code - summarizing that historic account.

8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

 

[BobRyan]

But you see, those of us who understand that Genesis 1 is poetry, written in the style of the creation hymns

Not a hymn - not a poem.


It is written in the style of historic narrative.

[FONT=&quot], 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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

I fully acknowledge that within the context of the passage (talking about internal narrative here), it is talking about a literal seven days.

Which is how the newly freed slaves from Egypt would have read and accepted it.

They would not have inserted "vast ages of undetermined time" into "six days you shall labor ... for in six days the Lord made" -- nor would they have done so in Genesis 1 "evening and morning were the 2nd day" etc.

What we are saying is that the entire passage, taken as a whole,is not literal.

Indeed - but neither Moses nor his readers would know that you are saying it.

And it was not very popular in Christianity to do such a thing at all until after 1844 when Darwin's manuscript was complete.

It is a polemic, not a history. "History" as a genre was not around until Thucydides.

The ability to record historic fact was something Moses demonstrated all through Genesis and Exodus. And then again in Deuteronomy.

And the Bible does it from Genesis to the end of 2 Kings.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Tzaousios]

And Moses further reminds us of the accuracy of the historic account in Gen 1:2--2:3 by this statement found in legal code - summarizing that historic account.

I do not see what purpose these kinds of statements serve. If they are aimed at other Christians, that does not make sense since the Christians in this discussion accept the Bible as an inspired text. Thus, it becomes a matter of interpretation, not merely accepting or rejecting what the Bible plainly says.

Looking at the statement from the standpoint of logic, it is rather circular in nature because it re-states the premise as true based upon evidence found in the same source.

 

[BobRyan]

And Moses further reminds us of the accuracy of the historic account in Gen 1:2--2:3 by this statement found in legal code - summarizing that historic account.

8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

So then the timeline - the "unit of time" as they would have understood and accepted it is obvious to the reader

"six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord made"

I do not see what purpose these kinds of statements serve. If they are aimed at other Christians, that does not make sense since the Christians in this discussion accept the Bible as an inspired text.

The purpose is to show what details the text itself present to the reader.

Looking at the statement from the standpoint of logic, it is rather circular in nature because it re-states the premise as true based upon evidence found in the same source.

It is not true that it is circular logic to argue the the text has a 7 day timeline because the text itself uses that term and that unit of time as in "six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord made".

Rather the claim is proven -- because the claim is about the details IN the text - so that showing those details to be IN the text just as claimed - proves the assertion.

Just stating the obvious in this case.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Tzaousios]

Mr. Ryan, why did you edit out from the quotes what I said about interpretation?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

so, the rcc and the evolutionists and the ones who agree with them don't trust Yhvh the Creator to mean what He says. Simply.

accept what Yhvh the Creator says, as people of faith did for thousands of years, and a few still do, and the difficulties discussed in this whole site disappear. it is only unregenerate thinking that denies what Yhvh the Creator says plainly, because in Yahushua the new creation clearly and cleanly and righteously and joyfully accepts without change the Word of Yhvh, with the mind of Christ, a true gift and wonderful with truth.

mankind , society, scientists, teachers, politicians, hollywood actors naturally all go along with the world and it's opposition to Christ Jesus - the world loves it's own, and propagates it.

a reminder, simple, men of faith in Yhvh never accepted corrupt teachings. like the Bereans, if something (even if spoken by an angel or an apostle of Yahushua ) opposes Torah, contradicts it in any way, or is not in line with Yhvh's Word even by association with other things not in line with Yhvh's Word, then it is point blank rejected as false, and the spreader of such that is contrary to Truth is shunned. Yahushua did not and does not brook any such wrangling about that which is clearly from the evil one, (Scripturally and historically and socially and religiously).

even hollywood admitted to broadcasting the fables of evolution only because that's where the money is for them. money, money, money. watch the money for clues. watch who is opposed to Yhvh's ekklesia. (like the facists, the nazis, and others) used the false theories to strip children from their parents and to de-humanize overall thinking...... and it largely worked! (see what happened in germany and in the usa!?)

 

[elliott95]

Personally I appreciate what David Berlinski has to say about evolution.
That is something to the effect that it is much more a dogma than a science.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIOIlCQDNgg

But that has nothing to do with the Bible or Jesus either.

 

[MKJ]

Until you read Genesis 1:2-2:3 where you find a true historic narrative written to the newly freed slaved from Egypt.

Moses was not a Darwinist, not an evolutionist and neither where the freed slaves from Egypt.

His 7 day timeline was not to be doubted by them due to some supposed pre-bias-for-evolutionism.

Exegesis dictates that the meaning conveyed by Moses to his readers is what the text stated - nothing less.

The text itself does not argue against the 7 day timeline in the text.

The only arguments against it that have become popular within Christianity today - only arise after the publication of the 1844 manuscript by Darwin. Thus it is only an agenda external to the text itself that tries to bend/edit/wrench it away from its own stated timeline.

That timeline is etched into legal code in Ex 20:8-11 "six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord made".

There are many "your posts are evil" posts provide in response to the OP - and those sorts of posts are simply avoiding the details of the discussion in most cases.

in Christ,

Bob

Why are you so worried about "Darwinism"? I don't give two hoots about it when it comes to the Bible. I don't read Genesis one way or another on the basis of some kind of Darwinism.

The text doesn't support the way you want to read it, nor does the Church, nor does history. Trying to read it that way leads to absurdity, as many Christian commentators in the early Church pointed out.

You are so scared of "Darwinism" you want to bring it into discussions where it has no business.

TRy and have some faith. God isn't out to trick you, or anybody else. His revelation in Scripture and nature are a unity. If we are wrong about nature, it will become clear. If we are wrong about Christianity, that will become clear too. Either way, we seek truth as best we can.

It should not be surprising that at times we cannot see clearly how precisly the metaphysical is related to the physical or natural world. Why would we think we should be capable of that? A just God will not fault us for trusting him if it leads us to not knowing the details or even getting them wrong at times.

But a just God will fault us for dishonest judgements and projects in order to justify our own ideas about Him, or in service of our own fears.

And he will judge us if our efforts at this kind of self-will turn others away from Him, as we know this kind of creationist fundamentalism is increasingly doing. It walks smack into the hands of the New Atheists who tell people CHristianity is anti-rational.

Faith really does set you free from this kind of turmoil.