Is the Bible reliable?

[BobRyan]

Christians were talking about what was meant by "day" back in the early Church, and saying it could not easily be understood in the normal sense.
.

some Christian some place might have said something.

I am talking about wholesale adoption into Christianity.



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

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.

============================================== end

in Christ,

Bob

 

[MKJ]

some Christian some place might have said something.

I am talking about wholesale adoption into Christianity.



Bob

Yes, Bob, so am I. This was a mainstream discussion. Not something said by some sectarian somewhere.

No one who has read any writings of the early Church is going to take you seriously, its just not possible to not know that this was a matter discussed in the earliest days of Christianity and even before.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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

How do you know what "face value" is without some context to frame it? (The answer is that the Catholic Church has said context and the authority to interpret it. You, on the other hand, choose NOT to accept John 6 at face value...right?)

(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.

No, you're right. But knowing what's symbol, what's real, and so on requires context. What is a day to God?

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.

And there's not one text in Scripture that says that Mary had other children, either. But you assume she did.

No ---- not one.

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

What defines evening and morning when there's not yet a sun and a moon?

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

And neither do I. But what is a day when there is no sun or moon? And what is time to God?

 

[elliott95]

Every Nicene Christian on the other hand must be a creationist.

What kind of a creationist? Because technically all you need to be a creationist is believe that God created the universe. You don't have to be a creationist who does not accept evolution......to be a creationist.

So I agree, as Christians we should believe that God created the world

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

The rest, as you note, is technicality.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

In what way do you see evolution doing this? In the sense of how complexity could come out of simple states?

Simply in that Enlightenment thinkers still had a fairly difficult time explaining the origins of complex life and thought without a complex living and thinking deity.

 

[BobRyan]

How do you know what "face value" is without some context to frame it?

Easy. and probably obvious.

"Six DAYS you shall labor...for in six DAYS the Lord made..." only works one way - days are days.

Not "six eons shall you labor.. for in 6 undefined uniits of long ages God made..." was "obviously" not how the author or his readers took the text and the meaning of day.

Some would argue that the face value there - is incredibly obvious.

No Catholic outsourcing would be needed to figure that out.

(The answer is that the Catholic Church has said context and the authority to interpret it. You, on the other hand, choose NOT to accept John 6 at face value...right?)

In John 6 Christ said "literal flesh is worthliess it is my Words that have spirit and life" to explain the symbols after saying "I AM the Bread that CAME down out of heaven:.

No Catholics claim that manna fell in the form of Jesus or that Israel ate Jesus in the wilderness and they do not claim that Jesus came to Mary as "bread" falling out of the sky etc. And of course - nobody "bites Christ" in John 6.

So then I am not the only one to admit to symbols in John 6.

(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 on this thread -

- one of them is that the same Christians that accept the truth of the Bible in Genesis 1 regarding the 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.

No, you're right. But knowing what's symbol, what's real, and so on requires context. What is a day to God?

God "is capable" of describing a 7 day week - as it turns out.

And His own summary of the 7 day week of Gen 1:2-2:3 is given in Ex 20:11 as part of Ex 20:8-11 "six days you shall labor..for in six days the Lord made.." .

legal code that is sooooo incredibly obvious that even the newly freed Egyptian slaves at Sinai had no need to outsource to the RCC to figure out what time frame God was talking about.

And there's not one text in Scripture that says that Mary had other children, either. But you assume she did.

I don't recall making that assumption.

But assuming she did or did not -- has nothing to do with "7 days is not really 7 days no matter what the Bible says to the contrary".

What defines evening and morning when there's not yet a sun and a moon?

And neither do I. But what is a day when there is no sun or moon? And what is time to God?

All that is required for evening and morning to work - is a rotating planet and a single-sided light source.

We do not need to know what the light source was - because as long as the Earth was rotating and the light source was only on one side - you would have "evening and morning".

I guess we all knew that.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, Bob, so am I. This was a mainstream discussion. Not something said by some sectarian somewhere.

No one who has read any writings of the early Church is going to take you seriously, its just not possible to not know that this was a matter discussed in the earliest days of Christianity and even before.

This is not me - quoting me -- this is recognized history - as it happened.

some Christian some place might have said something.

I am talking about wholesale adoption into Christianity.



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

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.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Easy. and probably obvious.

"Six DAYS you shall labor...for in six DAYS the Lord made..." only works one way - days are days.

Not "six eons shall you labor.. for in 6 undefined uniits of long ages God made..." was "obviously" not how the author or his readers took the text and the meaning of day.

Some would argue that the face value there - is incredibly obvious.

No Catholic outsourcing would be needed to figure that out.

In John 6 Christ said "literal flesh is worthliess it is my Words that have spirit and life" to explain the symbols after saying "I AM the Bread that CAME down out of heaven:.

No Catholics claim that manna fell in the form of Jesus or that Israel ate Jesus in the wilderness and they do not claim that Jesus came to Mary as "bread" falling out of the sky etc. And of course - nobody "bites Christ" in John 6.

So then I am not the only one to admit to symbols in John 6.



God "is capable" of describing a 7 day week - as it turns out.

And His own summary of the 7 day week of Gen 1:2-2:3 is given in Ex 20:11 as part of Ex 20:8-11 "six days you shall labor..for in six days the Lord made.." .

legal code that is sooooo incredibly obvious that even the newly freed Egyptian slaves at Sinai had no need to outsource to the RCC to figure out what time frame God was talking about.

I don't recall making that assumption.

But assuming she did or did not -- has nothing to do with "7 days is not really 7 days no matter what the Bible says to the contrary".

All that is required for evening and morning to work - is a rotating planet and a single-sided light source.

We do not need to know what the light source was - because as long as the Earth was rotating and the light source was only on one side - you would have "evening and morning".

I guess we all knew that.

in Christ,

Bob

See, that's the problem with you folks. You think you know better than Jesus.

There was no one-sided light source, according to Scripture, before the sun.

I just have to wonder, when Jesus says "Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man, you have no life in you." You determine that to be figurative, but days in Genesis could not possibly mean something else.

Days means what God wants it to mean, and so does "my flesh", to Jesus. You don't get to decide. God does.

And still, nowhere in the Bible does it say Mary had children. The Bible is reliable as long as you have authority to know what it says.

 

[BobRyan]

See, that's the problem with you folks. You think you know better than Jesus.

Not at all. Jesus said that Moses was writing the "Word of God" in Mark 7:6-13 -- and I believe Him.

The NT writers state clearly that the OT is to be accepted as scripture for NT saints - and Christ even says it is the "Word of God".

When in John 6 he says that He is the bread that CAME down out of heaven - when did he fall from heaven as bread -- in your thinking/

In Matt 16 Christ condemned the Disciples for taking too literally the statement "beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" and the too-literal disciple "thought he was talking about bread" --

There was no one-sided light source,

I was hoping to meet someone who may have been in orbit around the earth back then and could give us that bit of certainty. And now by your post --- apparently I have ... How old are you??

Genesis 1 does not say "There were no Angels before the Sun was created" and it does not say "There was no source of light before the sun was created" as you seem to imagine.

Rather it says that there WAS light before our sun.

I choose to believe the Bible.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[hedrick]

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

I'd go earlier. There was a major controversy over the new astronomy in the 16th Cent. Some used Calvin's theory of accommodation, that the Bible was written in terms that people of the time could understand. Others rejected astronomy because of their literal understanding of the Bible.

 

[Astonishing Doctrine]

Nevertheless, those chosen to write to Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit did so through the Jewish culture.

Luke, the Gentile Physician, wrote the book of Acts, under direction of the Holy Spirit.

The Apostle, Matthew, was also guided to the Scriptures in his part.

Both parts, in regards Judas the betrayer, are correct, when considered in their proper order.

Judas went an hung himself as recorded in both, and once the rope broke, due to his excess weight, he being a heavy man, he being greedy/covetous, and he fell at such a distance, 'falling headlong', so as to hit the unforgiving ground and 'burst asunder in the midst and all his bowels gushed out' upon impact with it. This was known 'unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem'.

There is nothing midradshic about it. Luke records the facts of the history, even as stated by the Disciples which witnessed it, along with Matthew which reveals the events beforehand, that twice it is recorded that he went and hung himself therein, and also that it was in fulfillment of prophecy.

Both accounts, refer to that prophecy and the 'field' purchased.

 

[Astonishing Doctrine]

...
I just have to wonder, when Jesus says "Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the son of man, you have no life in you." You determine that to be figurative, but days in Genesis could not possibly mean something else.

Days means what God wants it to mean, and so does "my flesh", to Jesus. You don't get to decide. God does.

And still, nowhere in the Bible does it say Mary had children. The Bible is reliable as long as you have authority to know what it says.

Genesis is again the foundation, the literal.

How can one then speak of figurative days, lest there be literal days to begin with?

How can Jesus be symbolically called the Lamb of God, if there were not literal lambs, even from the foundation of the world, first?

John 6, Jesus Himself specifically says:

John 6:63 - It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Jesus spake of his Words, thus teachings.

Jesus contrasted the literal manna, or bread, that fell from Heaven in the days of Moses, with Himself, the Spiritual Bread. The Words of God, is the Bread.

The Gospel of John is especially important to study carefully, since the major sections wherein Jesus is speaking, most often is understood, by the Jews thinking He is speaking literally/physically, when in fact He was speaking Spiritually.

Jesus speaks to the Pharisees in John 2, about destroying the Temple and its rebuilding. They misunderstood Jesus to be speaking about the physical temple in Jerusalem, yet Jesus spake of His spiritual body, being the spiritual Church.

Jesus speaks to Nicodemus in John 3 about being 'born again/from above' and Nicodemus, immediately misunderstands and replies with speech about a literal womb of a woman. Jesus corrects him.

Jesus speaks to the woman at the well in John 4, about water, and she misunderstands Jesus to be speaking about physical water from a well, and Jesus was referring to the Spiritual Waters, even the Holy Spirit.

Jesus speaks to the peoples about the Bread that fell from Heaven in John 6, and they mistake Jesus to be speaking about physical bread to eat, even as the Disciples also later misunderstood again, yet Jesus clearly says that He Himself, with His Words, is the spiritual bread from Heaven, and not physical manna/bread as the days of Moses.

The problem is, Roman Catholicism is on the same side of the misunderstanding as those previous Pharisees and hard of heart, not willing nor desirous to understand.

As for the latter part, Mary indeed had no further children, but she did have marital relations with Joseph, Scripturally speaking.

 

[BobRyan]

I'd go earlier. There was a major controversy over the new astronomy in the 16th Cent. Some used Calvin's theory of accommodation, that the Bible was written in terms that people of the time could understand. Others rejected astronomy because of their literal understanding of the Bible.

And Einstein insisted that motion can be accurately described by observational-frame-of-reference ... Thus it turns out that the cosmological argument was never a very good reason to dismiss what Christ calls "The Word of God" in Mark 7:6-13 when speaking of the OT text written by Moises. It was simply a red herring.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Nevertheless, those chosen to write to Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit did so through the Jewish culture.

A man is skillfull enough to communicate with others accurately and to pick up a pen and write out the instructions for replacing wiiper blades on his car -- with accuracy.

The All-knowing all-powerful God of the Bible is skillful enough to communicate with others accurately and to do it with Jews writing over long centuries of time and achieve the same level of accuracy if not more so.

Should we be surprised? or should we argue that whatever difficulty we would have trying to use humans as our means of writing - so also would God struggle with that level of indirection?.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Astonishing Doctrine]

...in Christ,

Bob

Hey brother Bob, can you free up a space or two in your PM, would like to send you a single message. Let me know if/when you have.

 

[sculleywr]

I'll use these ones by Topcare

1. Is the Bible to be taken completely literal in every way?
2. Is the Genesis account a literal account or does it teach a theological truth
3. Is the Bible made to contain everything?
4. Did God write the Bible Himself or did He inspire man to write the Bible using what they knew at the time?.

1. No. If we were to take it quite literally, then Christ has wings big enough to gather all of Jerusalem under, among other insanities. It is not meant to be taken literally. Rather, it should be understood within the context of the Community in which it was written: the Church.

2. I'll leave this alone. I don't touch evolution debates.

3. No. It is nowhere described as comprehensive. It is a book which needs interpretation. It is the Community of the Church that must go with the Scripture.

4. Perhaps both.

 

[MoreCoffee]

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

1. Is the Bible to be taken completely literal in every way?
2. Is the Genesis account a literal account or does it teach a theological truth
3. Is the Bible made to contain everything?
4. Did God write the Bible Himself or did He inspire man to write the Bible using what they knew at the time?

So I think the Big Bang could have happened, God spoke and bang it happened in one instance. It is also conceivable that God could use evolution. Neither of these go against the Bible unless one assumes everything in the Bible must be the literal truth.

1. No.
2. It is not to be taken as a prose history, a list of events. It does teach many theological lessons.
3. No.
4. God did not write a single word in the bible, not even the ten commandments (these may have been written on tablets of stone by God but the copy in the bible is hand written by a human being). God did inspire men (and possibly women) to write what's in the bible and yes they did use their own knowledge (whether correct or not) in what they wrote.

Yes it is conceivable that God used biological evolution.

 

[elliott95]

A man is skillfull enough to communicate with others accurately and to pick up a pen and write out the instructions for replacing wiiper blades on his car -- with accuracy.

More often than not these days -- with Chinglish.

The All-knowing all-powerful God of the Bible is skillful enough to communicate with others accurately and to do it with Jews writing over long centuries of time and achieve the same level of accuracy if not more so.

The connectedness of the Bible, and the hidden themes that come from using the clues in one verse to find the themes expanded in other diverse verses belies an intelligence that goes beyond the ability of any of the human authors. There is much human skill and accomplishment and artistry and discernment in the myriad books of the Bible to be sure. That the Bible is a fully human work, written in the context of Jewish culture and Jewish understanding is readily apparent.
The deeper relationships and connections and insights and wisdom that comes out of the Bible go beyond the abilities of any of the human penmanship, most undoubtedly.
The Bible is a profoundly spiritual work, and it is weaved into a unitary whole, not simply through the accomplishments of any redactor, but through the cohesion that the Holy Spirit brings to it.

Should we be surprised? or should we argue that whatever difficulty we would have trying to use humans as our means of writing - so also would God struggle with that level of indirection?.

Central right now in my mind is the idea of Jacob struggling with God, and prevailing. The opposite therefore must also be that God struggles with Israel, and prevails. It is a classic win-win scenario to take God seriously and reverently enough to seek out the blessings he has to offer and all costs, and to never take no for an answer, not even from God.


I do believe that God struggled with the all-too-human, all-too-fallible Jewish authors of the books of the Bible. There are terrifying aspects to the way God presents himself to us through them, where he takes on the aspects of pure evil, from our own perspective.

The Jews looked to the cross raised in the deserts and regarded the slain poisonous viper. The New Israel looks to the cross, and sees the Resurrected Jesus.
It is the same cross.

 

[BobRyan]

God is all-knowing and so with all the complexity of human nature and free will - even if the Jews reject Christ outright HE STILL achieves the result of a perfect Gospel, a Perfect mission for the Savior in offering salvation to "whosoever will".

Thus in Heb 3 when quoting the OT - the NT writer says "The Holy Spirit says...".

For God knows the future and knows how to inspire the prophet to see the truth and to inspire them to write it, and He foreknows exactly what the result will be.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Hey brother Bob, can you free up a space or two in your PM, would like to send you a single message. Let me know if/when you have.

Will do