Is the Bible reliable?

[hedrick]

The Jesus Seminar is simply not a scholarly enterprise. It's an embarrassment.

That's an overstatement. Borg and Crossan are both serious scholars. I haven't tracked down a full list to assess all of the people. However it represents a certain wing of critical scholarship, not the whole thing, and probably not even the mainstream. The major problem I have with it is the tendency (at least in the "Scholar's Translation," which is the only publication of theirs I've read) to identity their own views as *the* scholarly position.

My own position lies somewhere between Wright and Borg. But I don't think Borg is an embarrassment, and I accept him as a Christian, though I think he's more skeptical than necessary. (In particular, I accept the empty tomb as historical.)

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Originally Posted by hedrick

- I don't think it's hard to see a difference between the OT, which likely was written hundreds to thousands of years after the events, and the NT, which was written starting within a few decades

You lack of understanding concerning the scriptures origin is evident. You said earlier that you don't believe Adam and Eve were real and that you instead believed in Archaeological Evidence. Much archaeological evidence actually supports the bible records.

And most of the OT after Genesis was written at the time it happened, and even the parts which may have been orally handed down rather than written cannot be proven to have never been written in real time. The lack of text doesn't mean that it never existed in scripture form. Furthermore, Paul and others use men from Genesis such as Noah and Abraham in their own writings, Abraham was an important historical figure and can never be denied as being a real man.

Most of the NT was written at the time it happened, it was written in "real time". Revelation was clearly written in real time, as were the Epistles, and the Gospels were written shortly after the events took place and were written by eye witnesses.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

I also think that the Gospels were written very shortly after the resurrection of Christ, if not before, its possible that the words Christ spoke were written as he spoke them. Christ had one Scribe who wanted to follow him. If any scribe believed that Christ was the Messiah then surely he would have recorded his every word. But regardless, the eye witnesses who wrote the gospels surely recorded what they saw and heard. And surely they were teaching those things both in epistle and in oral sermon

 

[Jig]

Well I think we need to ask some questions about the Bible.

Is the Bible to be taken completely literal in every way?

This question doesn't make sense. No one takes the Bible "completely literal in every way". The better question would be one that explored various hermeneutic methodologies. For example, the method of interpretation you appear to be addressing in your question is the historical-grammatical approach.

Historical-grammatical method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is the Genesis account a literal account or does it teach a theological truth?

Again, this question is lacking. There are more than just two interpretive approaches to reading Genesis 1. The better question would be one that sought to identify the potential genre of Genesis 1.

So, to answer the question "Is the Bible reliable?", it comes down to your method of interpretation and your ability to accurately identify the various genres within the text.

 

[MKJ]

The Jesus Seminar follows the trajectory of higher criticism to include the resurrection as poetry.

That is the elephant in the room that you failed to address in your reply.

That is because the Jesus seminar works on the basis of what they, as 20th century skeptics, think is possible. Being alive after being born again is impossible, so it must mean something else.

The Bible is made up of many different books. There is absolutely no reason that they all need to be of the same genre, any more than any modern compilation does.

There is no good reason to think the Resurrection in Scripture or in the early Church generally is meant to be a poetic depiction (and I mean poetry in the sense of literature, not poetic form.) There are no indications in the text that it was meant to be understood that way, and it is clear that the early Christians didn't understand it in that way, and in fact there is every indication that we are meant to understand it as something that actually happened, an historical event.

People thought it was crazy, and the Christians didn't reply by saying it was meant to be poetic or symbolic, so don't worry about the crazy bit, which surely they would have if that is what they had thought.

I think if someone thinks that it is impossible and so dismiss it out of hand, they should conclude that it was an error, or a lie.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

That's an overstatement. Borg and Crossan are both serious scholars. I haven't tracked down a full list to assess all of the people. However it represents a certain wing of critical scholarship, not the whole thing, and probably not even the mainstream. The major problem I have with it is the tendency (at least in the "Scholar's Translation," which is the only publication of theirs I've read) to identity their own views as *the* scholarly position.

My own position lies somewhere between Wright and Borg. But I don't think Borg is an embarrassment, and I accept him as a Christian, though I think he's more skeptical than necessary. (In particular, I accept the empty tomb as historical.)

I didn't say that they aren't scholars, or that they were personal embarrassments. I'm speaking of the Seminar itself- which included the director of RoboCop, for crying out loud.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.




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

I guess you're one of those who, since it says "If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out", would do that. But we know that this is hyperbole, and miss the meaning of it if we take it literally. Also, Psalm 90 (I think) says that to God, 1000 years are like a day. So we don't really know literal days in Genesis. Since God is timeless, he has no days. We use the delineation "day" to put some human sense to what is conveyed.

FWIW, I'm not so sure "theistic evolution" attempts to say what timeframe God did all that he did.

 

[BobRyan]

I guess you're one of those who, since it says "If your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out", would do that.

I am amazed when people quote Christ then mock the idea of accepting his Word at face value.

(If your eye had a mind of its own to lead you into sin - you might want to consider wearing a patch.)

Christ accurately describes the dire nature of the issue.

In my 15 irrefutable points posted here - one of them is that the same Christians that accept the truth of the Bible in Genesis 1 regarding the 7 day timeline God placed there - are the guys who say that Revelation and Daniel and Song of Solomon are filled with symbols, allegory , metaphors etc.

It is beyond question.

the fact that something is a poem or a symbol does not mean the entire bible is symbol -- obviously.

But we know that this is hyperbole, and miss the meaning of it if we take it literally. Also, Psalm 90 (I think) says that to God, 1000 years are like a day.

There is not one text of scripture that says "and evening and morning were 1000 years" and there is not one text of scripture that says that "4th day, 5th day, 6th day" is another way to say '40,000'th year, 50,000th year" etc.

No ---- not one.

The language in Gen 1 "evening and morning" is always a day ---- in all of scripture - especially when numbered.

And then comes the 'no excuses' clause "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord Made" -- in legal code.

As has already been stated here - nobody arguing against the timeline of Genesis 1 has ever bothered to show that Genesis 1 argues against it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

That's an overstatement. Borg and Crossan are both serious scholars.

So is the atheist Bart Ehrman in all of his unceasing efforts to claim that the Bible cannot be trusted.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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.

The fringe groups were making headway no doubt - but it was not being adopted by the Christian universities and accepted as doctrine in mainline Christianity until after the mid-19th century.

Even the atheists admit " Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist" (Dawkins 1986, 6).

But that aside, nobody here is trying to "Darwinize" Genesis.

How nice for us in that case.

I welcome it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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.

That is not correct. The historic fact is that popular acceptance was gradual and it was not until after the publication of the 1844 manuscript that you start to see wholesale collapse of Christian groups on this subject.

When Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, many liberal Christians accepted evolution provided it was reconciled with the design argument. The clergymen Charles Kingsley and Frederick Temple who were both conservative Christians in the Church of England promoted a theology of creation as an indirect process controlled by divine laws. For some strict Calvinists, as natural selection did not entail inevitable progress it was welcomed since humanity could be seen as a fallen race needing salvation. Darwin's friend Asa Gray defended natural selection as compatible with design.[26] Darwin himself, in his second edition of the Origin, had written in the conclusion:
Theistic evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

another point to consider

Within a decade most scientists had been won over to evolution, but from the outset there was opposition to natural selection and a search for a more purposeful mechanism. In 1860 Richard Owen attacked the book in an anonymous review while praising "Professor Owen" for "the establishment of the axiom of the continuous operation of the ordained becoming of living things."[27] Sir John Herschel apparently dismissed the book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#cite_note-29




In the 1860s theistic evolutionism became a popular compromise in science, and gained widespread support from the general public. Between 1866–68, Owen published a theory of derivation proposing that species had an innate tendency to change in ways that resulted in variety and beauty showing creative purpose....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#cite_note-30


Nonetheless, it is important to notice that it was not until 1872 that Darwin speculated that humans may have “descended from a hairy quadruped, furnished with a tail and pointed ears,” or apes; an idea that historically led to more opposition to Darwin's theory from the religious community,[31]... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#cite_note-32
Acceptance

Main article: Acceptance of evolution by religious groups
According to Eugenie Scott: "In one form or another, Theistic Evolutionism is the view of creation taught at the majority of mainline Protestant seminaries, and it is the official position of the Catholic church",[9] despite studies showing that acceptance of evolution is lower in the United States than in Europe or Japan (only Turkey had a lower rate in the 34 countries sampled).[33]

 

[Melethiel]

Well the LCMS believes, teaches, and confesses a literal 6 day creation.

More info here: http://lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=1103

If that's sad or shameful to you, sorry. That's what we believe, and that's what we will teach. You won't win the Synod over.

I anticipate that changing within the next 30 years. There are a lot of people within the seminaries who think that a literary reading is what is demanded by the text.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Borg and Crossan are both serious scholars. I haven't tracked down a full list to assess all of the people. However it represents a certain wing of critical scholarship, not the whole thing, and probably not even the mainstream. The major problem I have with it is the tendency (at least in the "Scholar's Translation," which is the only publication of theirs I've read) to identity their own views as *the* scholarly position.

My own position lies somewhere between Wright and Borg. But I don't think Borg is an embarrassment, and I accept him as a Christian, though I think he's more skeptical than necessary. (In particular, I accept the empty tomb as historical.)

Although I would lean toward Wright on a number of issues, there are times Crossan has offered some refreshing perspectives. On the subject, have you ever heard of Robert Price?

As one who is a religious skeptic (coming out of a Christian background) and occasionally describing himself as a Christian atheist, He's definitely someone who (even in disagreement with Wright as a critic of the Faith) is appreciated in the way that he has laid out issues on a number of occassions when it comes to the academic world and taking seriously differing concerns on who Christ was (even though I tend to see Price's work similar to Caiphas in John 11 who wasn't for Christ and yet didn't realize he prophesied the death of Christ - in the same way that I feel Price doesn't realize that his excellent lectures on Christological concepts of Christ arriving in differing religions actually helps in showing Christ working in other religions)....his work actually helping, IMHO, to sharpen other Biblical Scholars on being on top of their game:


Is The Bible True? White vs Price 5/6/2010 - YouTube

#74 Debate - Robert M. Price vs Gregory Boyd - Who Was Jesus - 2003 - YouTube

Jesus: Legend, Teacher, Critic, or Son of God? Greg Boyd vs. Robert M. Price - YouTube

The Resurrection of Jesus - Michael Licona & Gary Habermas vs. Robert M. Price & Richard Spencer - YouTube

Robert M Price Pagan Parallels to Christ Part 1 - YouTube

Robert M Price Pagan Parallels to Christ Part 2 - YouTube

Interview with Robert Price (Is the Bible reliable?) - YouTube

 

[Melethiel]

I am curious - is this true of European Lutherans? In the US, it often seems like Christians, even the Catholics, are being influenced by fundamentalism.

I actually know of a few people who otherwise would have become Lutheran, but they did not because of this issue.

I don't think so. Americans are pretty unique in insisting on a literal reading of Genesis.

 

[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.

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.

Bumped for BobRyan.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The bible is fully reliable for what it claims to be.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. -- 2 Timothy 3

Scripture makes no claim of being a text of cosmology or archeology or mathematics or physics or physiology.

Scripture tells us what creation cannot.

There is no claim in scripture of anything that can be revealed by observation of nature, whether with the naked eye or by telescope or by microscope or whatever.

Scripture is fully reliable for what it claims as its purpose: As a text for teaching righteousness.

One of the best ways of expressing the primary purpose of Scripture and what happens when that purpose is exchanged for another.

 

[Melethiel]

That is not correct. The historic fact is that popular acceptance was gradual and it was not until after the publication of the 1844 manuscript that you start to see wholesale collapse of Christian groups on this subject.



another point to consider

I wasn't talking about theistic evolution. I was talking about the day-age reading, which has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with the discoveries of geology regarding the age of the earth. It is a fact that based on geology, people abandoned a young earth reading of Genesis before evolution was fully fleshed out as an idea.

 

[BobRyan]

More "details" point to a post-1844 popular acceptance of evolutionizing history eventually being accepted into the school system and then the churches.

Until the late 19th century, creation was taught in nearly all schools in the United States, often from the position that the literal interpretation of the Bible is inerrant.





With the widespread acceptance of the scientific theory of evolution in the 1860s after being first introduced in 1859, and developments in other fields such as geology and astronomy, public schools began to teach science that was reconciled with Christianity by most people,


but considered by a number of early fundamentalists to be directly at odds with the Bible.

In the aftermath of World War I, the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy brought a surge of opposition to the idea of evolution, and following the campaigning of William Jennings Bryan several states introduced legislation prohibiting the teaching of evolution. Such legislation was considered and defeated in 1922 in Kentucky and South Carolina, in 1923 passed in Oklahoma, Florida, and notably in 1925 in Tennessee, as the Butler Act.[2] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) offered to defend anyone who wanted to bring a test case against one of these laws.

All the acceptance with it associated turmoil comes after the 1844 manuscript.

That the attempts to undercut the 7 day timeline by actual Christian universities and mainline Christianity were not driven by the content of Genesis 1 - but rather by agendas external to the text itself.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I wasn't talking about theistic evolution. I was talking about the day-age reading, which has nothing to do with evolution

Has nothing to do with facts in Genesis 1 and the way God summarized those facts in legal code in Ex 20:11.

As we saw --


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

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.

and everything to do with the discoveries of geology regarding the age of the earth.

No radiometrics then either.

The point is that neither the schools nor the churches of mainilne Christiantiy were going for "not really 7 day creation week" until after the idea was accepted more generally in science and then put into public schools.

And as we saw in the prior posts - that did not happen until after the 1844 manuscript was completed by Darwn and later published.

But if you want to the "external-to-the-text" agenda to be first geology then Darwinian evolutionism - I am fine with it.

My point is that external "need" to bend/wrench the text "no matter what it says to the contrary" is a not-so-subtle form of eisegesis that most serious Bible student would have otherwise tried to avoid.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

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

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.

Can't edit that post - since the CF bugs don't allow it on that post - but I can add your post here...

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.

it does not change the response to your post - the details in my response remain accurate.

=============recall --

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"

Originally Posted by Tzaousios

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.
===================================== the point remains

Bumped for BobRyan.

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

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

I can highlight that text "in red" in the post above - if you like.

It does not change anything because you are only expressing your dislike of accepting the Genesis 1 text as it reads. Always grant you that right and free will without complaint.

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

Neither you - nor anyone else on this board has "gone to the actual text" to show that it argues against its own 7 day timeline.

The point remains.

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

Its called 'substantiating the point". - When I make a claim about Genesis 1 stating certain details - I then show IN the text that my claim is true.

This is not something you are doing - and oddly enough you seem to dislike the idea of substantiating claims made about the content of Genesis - by going to genesis and seeing the details of the content.

how odd.

Originally Posted by Tzaousios

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.
​

​

Bumped for BobRyan.

The point remains that you cannot make some counter-cast regarding the text - by continually avoiding it. If you wish to show Moses arguing against his own 7 day timeline in Genesis 1:2-2:3 as you seem to imagine that he does - you will need to spend some time with the actual text and then show that you have a case to be made there.

Simply complaining that my case CAN be made in the text while yours can only be made by avoiding it - is self-defeating for your argument.

in Christ,

Bob