Is the Bible reliable?

[BobRyan]

I dont follow the words of most theologians so i sure wont follow darwin. I just follow the scriptures and that seems good enough, more than enough in fact, the scriptures are a lifetime study. I do listen to others opinions and a commentary once in awhile, but for the most part the scriptures seem more than sufficient to teach me about history of creation, and other things God has done. And its sufficient to teach me about all things which pertain to life and godliness that are worth knowing. The bible cant teach me how to be a carpenter, gardener or to play the guitar, and those are other things i enjoy, but the scriptures are first place in all my thinking and doing.

Amen, praise the Lord for His Word.

Darwin is just providing "personal testimony" as to just how thoroughly his faith in blind-faith-evolutionism so utterly destroyed his faith in Christianity.

He graduated with an "ordinary degree" (interesting title) where he did have to study theology.

At the end of the week when the results were posted he was dazed and proud to have come 10th out of a pass list of 178 doing the ordinary degree. Charles shone in theology and scraped through in the other subjects. He was also exhausted and depressed, writing to Fox "I do not know why the degree should make one so miserable."[46]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin's_education

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

After more than 100 posts on this thread - and a lot of complaining about the Genesis 1 text - we have not one -- no not one that I have seen... not one single post trying negate the Genesis 1 statements on 7 days of creation by showing something in the text telling the readers to be sure and not accept the 7 day timeline given IN the text of this historical narrative giving us an account of creation week.

So for those needing some pointers on where to go to find that the text itself argues against its own 7 day timeline -- start here

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

Gen 1

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.


Gen 2
Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which 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

Ex 20:8-11 "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX Days the Lord MADE ...."

Need even more help??

Ex 20:11
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]

So then the challenge is to show that the "text" above is arguing against 7 days - not merely your own external-to-the-text agenda arguing against it.

Any takers??

 

[Tzaousios]

Quote something if you think anything is changed. If you can show that in my response something was left out that changes the response to your post or that explains something -- show it.

I don't mind talking about actual details.

It does change something, which is why I think you disingenuously edited out the part about interpretation from the quote. Because you are making a particular interpretation of the text, people are free to accept it or reject it without fear of rejecting "what the Bible plainly says."

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.

Which is circular reasoning. You are trying to corroborate what a text says by referring to the same text. Instead, you would first have needed to admit that you are making an interpretation of Genesis, secondly that you hold wooden literalism as your method of interpretation, and finally, that you believe wooden literalism is the only valid method of interpretation for Christians.

After you do this, then perhaps people can begin to engage you on a level playing field where all assumptions and presuppositions have been revealed.

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

So what? Anyone who can read can do this for themselves. Now, if you want to offer an interpretation, people can choose to accept or reject it as they see fit without being accused of rejecting "what the Bible plainly says."

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.

No, you are re-stating the obvious from before, which is that you are employing circular reasoning by assuming a certain exegetical method, interpreting the verses having to do with creation within those assumptions, and holding up additional texts from the same work which you think validates it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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

Science cannot explain how the universe was created, but only present theories. Religion does not attempt to explain it. It simply states that God did it. I think the two speak about the same event (Creation) and go at it from two different ways. Sorta like the old way we did math, and the new Common Core way.
If we believe the Bible is the Word of God, then we know God didn't make any mistakes. Therefore, any mistakes must be from humanity. I know, there are things like supposedly incorrect names of kings, and what they were king of, and so on. Those do not change the truthful essence of what is being taught-faith in God, belief in God, morals, ethics and how to live.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Why Evolution, a religion of itself, is foolishness-


1 Co 1:20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Glory Only in the Lord
26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence. 30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption— 31 that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the Lord.”[c]


Jeremiah 9:23 Thus says the Lord:

“Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom,
Let not the mighty man glory in his might,
Nor let the rich man glory in his riches;
24 But let him who glories glory in this,
That he understands and knows Me,
That I am the Lord, exercising lovingkindness, judgment, and righteousness in the earth.
For in these I delight,” says the Lord.

 

[MKJ]

The OP seems to be talking about Darwinism, im not sure why you say it has no business in this discussion. I join Bob's disapproval of Darwinism. Darwinism seems to steal Gods Glory, it doesn't give God glory because it denies creationism, and it denies Gods holy scriptures which say that God created all things.



Darwin quotes-


“I had gradually come by this time, [i.e. 1836 to 1839] to see that the Old Testament was no more to be trusted than the sacred books of the Hindoos or the beliefs of any barbarian.”

Charles Darwin


“I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the Son of God.”

Charles Darwin

The OP talks about "Darwinism" because it isn't actually a thing - he can make it whatever he wants.

Darwin's views about religion are totally beside the point - many very devout Christians believe in evolutionary theory, or do not believe in 20th century Biblical fundamentalism.

It's not a good faith OP or topic.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

The OP talks about "Darwinism" because it isn't actually a thing - he can make it whatever he wants.

Darwin's views about religion are totally beside the point - many very devout Christians believe in evolutionary theory, or do not believe in 20th century Biblical fundamentalism.

It's not a good faith OP or topic.

I think its good to preach about faith in God vs Darwinism. I think that we should glorify God in all things, however i don't think Darwinism brings God glory so i think Christians should reject it fully.

 

[MKJ]

I think its good to preach about faith in God vs Darwinism. I think that we should glorify God in all things, however i don't think Darwinism brings God glory so i think Christians should reject it fully.

Restoremysoul, no one is a Darwinist. Except I suppose Darwin, who is dead.

People who believe in the unity of knowledge and generally have no issues with modern science, or who believe that ways of reading the Bible that come out of the eraly 20th century are wrong, are not necessarily opposed to faith. Here on CF, you will find that many of them are very faithful, and many such people are scholars or theologians who spend their whole lives reading and contemplating God's word.

Your assumption that the two are in some kind of fundamental opposition is just incorrect.

What is more, when you tell people that something like this is actually incompatible with Christianity, you drive people away from Christ. It is very common for people today in western nations who have no religious background to not even bother to consider it, because they believe those who tell them that Christians must be literalist creationists.

There hear it from people like you and BobRyan, and they hear it from people like Dawkins, and so they think it is true, and they never have even a chance to know Christ. And that is really the point of the whole thing - not adhering to some modern interpretation of how to read the Bible.

 

[MoreCoffee]

After more than 100 posts on this thread - and a lot of complaining about the Genesis 1 text - we have not one -- no not one that I have seen...

It is possible that such posts exist but that for some reason they have escaped your notice ...

 

[BobRyan]

who knows... maybe someone will post a link to just such a post for us... will be interesting to see if they ever do it.

 

[BobRyan]

The OP talks about "Darwinism" because it isn't actually a thing - .

Turns out - Darwin knew a thing or two about Darwinian evolutionism. And one thing he knew was that it is not compatible with the Bible as indeed is the case with evolutionism in general. At least if one is going to pay attention to the details 'in the text'.

And as a said - the idea of munging the text up to try and come-up with a Darwinized - evolution-friendly version of Genesis 1 was not popular at all within Christianity until after Darwin's 1844 manuscript actually got published.

that is not a coincidence - as it turns out.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It does change something, which is why I think you disingenuously edited out the part about interpretation from the quote.

The post you are responding to is the one where I included your full unedited post and demonstrate that nothing in it - changes the point of the response I gave to it.

Because you are making a particular interpretation of the text, people are free to accept it or reject it

I never argue against free will on this thread.

I think we all knew that.

Which is circular reasoning. You are trying to corroborate what a text says by referring to the same text.

That is not true at all.

I am not trying to prove that Moses' 7 day creation account is really what happened because it is Moses' 7 day creation account.

I am trying to prove that Moses provides a 7 day creation account by looking at "the details in the text" and SEEING the very 7 day creation account that I claim.

It would be foolish of me to go to an "any text but the text of Genesis 1" extremist solution - to show the details IN Genesis 1.

I think we all see that as well.

Thus it is not circular reasoning rather it is backing up the claim about what I claim IS IN Genesis 1 -- with the actual text of Genesis 1. It is key to my argument that I should be showing that "in the details" we see the very thing I claim is in the text.

Again - this is an obvious point that both sides see clearly.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

And in connection with that prior post -- I have now added this...


After more than 100 posts on this thread - and a lot of complaining about the Genesis 1 text - we have not one -- no not one that I have seen... not one single post trying negate the Genesis 1 statements on 7 days of creation by showing something in the text telling the readers to be sure and not accept the 7 day timeline given IN the text of this historical narrative giving us an account of creation week.

So for those needing some pointers on where to go to find that the text itself argues against its own 7 day timeline -- start here

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

Gen 1

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.


Gen 2
Thus the heavens and the earth, and all the host of them, were finished. 2 And on the seventh day God ended His work which 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

Ex 20:8-11 "SIX days you shall labor...for in SIX Days the Lord MADE ...."

Need even more help??

Ex 20:11
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]

Science cannot explain how the universe was created, but only present theories. Religion does not attempt to explain it.

The Bible not only states that "God did it" but it even gives us the exact 7 day timeline where God brings about all life on earth - and our sun and our moon.

Details "in the text" not details being added to the text by hopeful creationists.

I propose that a one sentence Genesis one that "simply states that God did it" (to quote your post) -- would be much more the sort of thing that theistic evolutionism would have hoped for.

. I think the two speak about the same event (Creation) and go at it from two different ways. Sorta like the old way we did math, and the new Common Core way.
If we believe the Bible is the Word of God, then we know God didn't make any mistakes. Therefore, any mistakes must be from humanity.

God is fully able to ensure that what is written in the Bible is of God -- He himself calls it "the Word of God". Mark 7:6-13.

And what is in nature is fully known by God and imperfectly guessed at by man. Theistic evolutionism seeks to place the "state-of-the-quesswork" of mankind on par with the Word of God when it comes to statements about origins.

I think that logic is flawed.

But beyond that - I think the "details" in the Genesis 1:2-2:3 do explicitly spell out the 7 day creation week which is not at all the way to describe a religion like evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Tzaousios]

The post you are responding to is the one where I included your full unedited post and demonstrate that nothing in it - changes the point of the response I gave to it.

I think it is pretty clear at this point that any challenges to your position will be met with hand-waving in the effort to make them go away. Nevertheless, merely re-posting the equivalent of "nuh uh!" does not resolve the problems of ignoring the role of interpretation and a circular reading of the text.

People should take this into account when they read your comments and dare to challenge anything you have to say.

 

[Melethiel]

Indeed - Darwin noticed the problem ... in more recent times Dawkins, Provine, Meyers all are on record as noticing that same problem.

And it is not "coincidence" that it is only AFTER the 1844 manuscript by Darwin is complete that you find popular attempts inside Christianity to darwinize Genesis 1 - specifically attacking the 7 day timeline given in that historic narrative - and summarize in the form "six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord made.." Ex 20:11

in Christ,

Bob

Day-age interpretations became common during the geological discoveries of the early 19th century, BEFORE Darwin wrote his manuscript. You start seeing it in the 1830s, to be exact.

But that aside, nobody here is trying to "Darwinize" Genesis. Seriously, I'm going to say it again, NOBODY is trying to do that. Nobody is trying to claim that Genesis teaches evolution.

So the conclusions in the post quoted are wrong on both counts. Please try again.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-
Which is circular reasoning. You are trying to corroborate what a text says by referring to the same text. Instead, you would first have needed to admit that you are making an interpretation of Genesis, secondly that you hold wooden literalism as your method of interpretation, and finally, that you believe wooden literalism is the only valid method of interpretation for Christians.
-snip-

So, would you say Christ came in the flesh or maybe? If the former, could you explain the difference between John and Moses' 7 days? If the latter, c/u around.

 

[Tzaousios]

So, would you say Christ came in the flesh or maybe? If the former, could you explain the difference between John and Moses' 7 days? If the latter, c/u around.

This, coupled with the traditional "c/u around" ultimatum, sounds like a red herring designed to induce a GOTCHA moment. What does Christ in the flesh have to do with a wooden interpretation of Genesis?

 

[Standing Up]

This, coupled with the traditional "c/u around" ultimatum, sounds like a red herring designed to induce a GOTCHA moment. What does Christ in the flesh have to do with a wooden interpretation of Genesis?

You tell us. How do you interpret one as literal and the other as "wooden"? What's your standard?