Is the Bible reliable?

[Root of Jesse]

I think you'll find that the Catholic Church says quite clearly that although evolution is compatible with Catholicism, it is required theologically that Adam and Eve were real individual people, not simply types or allegorical images.

That doesn't mean that they were not part of a larger population, that is left up in the air.

True this!

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, I do believe that. They certainly didn't die.

Question for you literalists...how do you reconcile the two Creation narratives?

Question for the Bible literalist who believes in the literal virgin birth, bodily resurrection of Christ and denies the Bible doctrine on origins - notice that the fall of man and the 7 day timeline is instantiated in legal code and in the doctrine of salvation.

You cannot sell out the Bible to serve evolutionism and not break it.

There is only 1 account of Creation with a timeline in it in Gen 1-2.

only one has a timeline time-boxed sequence -- the remainder of Genesis 2 provides details that fit perfectly into the single time-boxed sequential timeline of Gen 1:2-2:3 as almost everyone agrees.

Which means taking an any-ol-excuse-will-do pair of scissors to the Bible's historic account of origins -- simply does not work.

I think we can all see that.

in Christ,


Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Arguments against the 7 day timeline that we find both in the historic account of origins and in the legal code of the Bible - are not made because of the text -- they are made in spite of the details in the text as noted below.

A perfect example of the much-to-be-ignored 7 day timeline that is given in the Bible account of our origins.

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 there is simply no way the newly free egyptian slaves were going to go through all the "flights of fancy" that some have inserted on this thread trying to wrench the text away from its stated 7 day timeline when they themselves would have to hold to it - on a weekly basis,.

 

[BobRyan]

Oh I believe that Adam and Eve were real people and that Genesis is literal as far as whether how long Genesis lasted if you side on OEC or YEC is something I still haven't figured out and may end not caring because our Salvation doesn't depend on how old the earth is.

But of course that's for another discussion in the creation/origins forum.

The Bible makes it clear that all life on earth was created in that 7 day week that is the same as the 7 day week of Sinai "six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord made" Ex 20:8-11.

Check this thread out carefully - those who argue against that legal code do so "in spite of the details in the text" -- not because of them.

that is "instructive".


in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The evolution of mankind would not have happened from one man and one woman, but as a group

At least that is the way "the story goes".

As atheist biologist and noted scientists at the British Museum of Natural history noted Collin Patterson when it comes to stories "about how one thing came from another" that are based on the fossil record -- "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science".

He mace a pretty good case on that point.

Mitochondrial "Eve" and Y-chromosome "Adam" argue in favor of one genetic father and one genetic mother.

Much as atheist evolutionists wince at the fact that science does not serve their bias and interest in that case.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

What is THIS?????????


HERESY


Kidding of course. Though some evolutionary creationists consider Adam and Eve a myth, there are some christians who accept evolution, who also accept some kind of Adam and Eve. .

Probably because they figured out that Darwin was right when he observed that you cannot marry evolutionism to the Bible account of origins and without that - the Gospel falls apart.

in Christ

Bob

 

[Root of Jesse]

Question for the Bible literalist who believes in the literal virgin birth, bodily resurrection of Christ and denies the Bible doctrine on origins - notice that the fall of man and the 7 day timeline is instantiated in legal code and in the doctrine of salvation.

This is a lie. I do not deny the Bible doctrine on origins. I disagree with your interpretation of it.

You cannot sell out the Bible to serve evolutionism and not break it.

It's not a question of either/or, as you believe. It's a matter of both being true if properly stated and/or understood.

There is only 1 account of Creation with a timeline in it in Gen 1-2.

There are two accounts of Creation which contradict each other, on the surface. One places Man's creation first. Which one is correct?

only one has a timeline time-boxed sequence -- the remainder of Genesis 2 provides details that fit perfectly into the single time-boxed sequential timeline of Gen 1:2-2:3 as almost everyone agrees.

When one understands that the first one doesn't intend to be seven literal days, they do fit perfectly. But not if you insist on seven literal days.

Which means taking an any-ol-excuse-will-do pair of scissors to the Bible's historic account of origins -- simply does not work.

And I've shown which of us does that...it's not me. Pot meet kettle.

I think we can all see that.

The blind can see now.

in Christ,


Bob

don't you mean "In Michael, the Archangel"?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Arguments against the 7 day timeline that we find both in the historic account of origins and in the legal code of the Bible - are not made because of the text -- they are made in spite of the details in the text as noted below.

It would be nice if I was arguing against the 7 day timeline. My argument is "what is a day to God"?

 

[Root of Jesse]

The Bible makes it clear that all life on earth was created in that 7 day week that is the same as the 7 day week of Sinai "six days you shall labor...for in six days the Lord made" Ex 20:8-11.

Check this thread out carefully - those who argue against that legal code do so "in spite of the details in the text" -- not because of them.

that is "instructive".


in Christ,

Bob

You mean while ignoring other details in the text?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Probably because they figured out that Darwin was right when he observed that you cannot marry evolutionism to the Bible account of origins and without that - the Gospel falls apart.

in Christ

Bob

Darwin was wrong, more than once.

 

[BobRyan]

If the pope accepts evolution, then he must accept the evolutionary idea that at no time did the human species exist as a single breeding pair.
Evolution happens in populations.

Which makes the Bible an unreliable source for the Gospel - because the Gospel does not hold up if Adam was not in some way able to doom the entire planet to hell - by one sin, such that the Son of God would have to come and die in our place to avoid such an Adam-condemned starting point.

if you turn it all into so much Easter-bunny fiction then as Darwin himself noted - you have no Gospel left -- its entire premise is wiped out.

No wonder atheists love the story telling we find in blind-faith evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[James Is Back]

I think if we are going to debate YEC and OEC doctrines than I think this thread should be moved to the origins forum.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Which makes the Bible an unreliable source for the Gospel - because the Gospel does not hold up if Adam was not in some way able to doom the entire planet to hell - by one sin, such that the Son of God would have to come and die in our place to avoid such an Adam-condemned starting point.

if you turn it all into so much Easter-bunny fiction then as Darwin himself noted - you have no Gospel left -- its entire premise is wiped out.

No wonder atheists love the story telling we find in blind-faith evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob

It is your opinion, and that, only, that we believe the Bible to be unreliable. But the Gospel was spoken before it was written, sir. The Catholic Church holds to a literal Adam and Eve, doesn't state anything about evolution, just that it may be believed, as long as God is part of the theory.
Darwin wished there was no Gospel, or Bible, but he was wrong in many things.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I think if we are going to debate YEC and OEC doctrines than I think this thread should be moved to the origins forum.

Personally, I don't really care one way or the other. The fact is God did it. The end. The rest is details we can argue about, which doesn't really matter.

God created everything, including the first man and first woman.

 

[elliott95]

It is a indeed a problem for any subsequent reading of the texts to presume that they are historically reliable when the premise becomes that all the history that has led up to them, and within which they are all based, are not historically reliable.
It is not a question of man's wisdom superceding God's however, for it is not man's philosophies that are challenging the reliability of the Genesis account, but it is our own eyes and experience of the world that is demonstrating that a literalist account of Genesis does not correspond with known and measurable physical events in the universe.

It is not our own desires and our wills that we must let go of in order to conform to a literalist view of Genesis, but our santity, or sense of logic and proportion and the belief that God is not an arbitrary trickster who has built a world in which our our abilities to make sense of it cannot be trusted.
We must let go of our trust in God who makes rules and laws that govern the universe, and place our trust in the kind of creator that blots out tomorrow what he set forth yesterday, a world indeed where God did not complete creation on the sixth day and enter into a seventh day of rest, but an entirely unpredictable world, where on the eight day, all the rules and natural laws set up on the sixth become reneged

A literalist reading of the creation story does not challenge God's authority but it does contradict his fidelity to his creation. It does challenge the concept that God is a being who remains faithful to his creation that he loves, for there is no longer any consistency or any ability to discern his laws and his order working within it.
Indeed, accepting the advances of science and historical and literary methods of understanding the Bible does pose challenges to its historical reliability, and those who deny or downplay that are not fooling anyone but themselves.

But those who insist on the literacy of the Genesis account in the face of all the evidence to the contrary are challenging the character of God himself, and of how he has revealed himself to us over the past two thousand years.

 

[elliott95]

Which makes the Bible an unreliable source for the Gospel - because the Gospel does not hold up if Adam was not in some way able to doom the entire planet to hell - by one sin, such that the Son of God would have to come and die in our place to avoid such an Adam-condemned starting point.

if you turn it all into so much Easter-bunny fiction then as Darwin himself noted - you have no Gospel left -- its entire premise is wiped out.

No wonder atheists love the story telling we find in blind-faith evolutionism.

in Christ,

Bob

Atheists have started their celebration of the death of God much too soon. It is a form of godless dogmatism that must go beyond the limitations of science for them to adhere blindly to the mantra that there there is no Creator.

It is a rather easy argument for them nevertheless, to discredit a literalist account of Genesis. Fortunately, Christianity does not depend on this fundamentalist reading of Scripture as inerrant, infallible history to still believe.

 

[James Is Back]

Personally, I don't really care one way or the other. The fact is God did it. The end. The rest is details we can argue about, which doesn't really matter.

God created everything, including the first man and first woman.

I agree with you 100%. He is the Creator of all things that is good.

 

[Belly Rumble]

Isaiah 56 and the Book of Revelation are the best passages in the Bible in my opinion that explain what Father is going to Judge you on when you die. Many Christians are not going to like what I am about to say. Father wants a few in every community to "Cry aloud, spare not, Lift up your voice like a trumpet; Tell My People their transgression." Here we go, buckle up and leave the Devil at the Door! Remember, I am not Righteous and probably am the biggest sinner among you. The Last Book of the Bible is the one that Jesus wanted to make clear in once and for all how do you inherit Eternal Life. He gave these words to His Beloved Disciple John knowing that this would be the last Book in the entire Holy Bible. I am talking about the Book of Revelation. In this Book Jesus says that the "Only Ones" that get to spend Eternity with Father and Himself are called the: "Blessed Ones, Chosen Ones, & Faithful Ones" (Revelation 14:12-13, 17:14, 19:9, 20:6). In this last Book of the Bible we are told the only way to Eternal Life is to be in the group of people who: 1.) Keep the Commandments of God & 2.) have the faith and testimony of Jesus Christ. Now having said that, you may be wondering what does it mean to "keep the Commandments of God"?. Well hundreds of years before Jesus gave this revelation to John, Jesus "The Word" gave it to the prophet Isaiah. Jesus makes it very clear in Isaiah 56 what it means to keep the Commandments of God! In Isaiah 56:2 Jesus tells us who are the "Blessed Ones" just like He did in Revelation chapters 14, 17, 19, & 20. Jesus EVEN STOMPS HIS FEET WHILE HE TEACHES THIS JUST LIKE A TEACHER WOULD IF HE WAS TEACHING THE TEST. Jesus says in Isaiah 56:2 "the man who DOES THIS, and the son of man who LAYS HOLD ON IT" will receive the Salvation mentioned in verse 1. Jesus says throughout chapter 56 that THIS CHAPTER is for the Gentile Church!!! Jesus refers to the "church" here as the "sons of the foreigner who join themselves to the Lord". Jesus also refers to the Gentile Church here as "Others besides those outcasts of Israel will be gathered to Father when Jesus Comes. Jesus capitalizes the "O" in others here not me. Jesus also says "Every Man who does THESE THINGS" are considered the Blessed Ones. Now, does Isaiah 56 lists of things you must do to be saved the same as the list in the Book of Revelation? YES!!! Here is how it is worded in Isaiah: 1.) The Blessed Ones choose what pleases Me. 2.) they love the "NAME OF THE LORD" and choose to be His Servants. {JESUS CHRIST}. 3.) Keep from defiling the SABBATH 4.) Keep from doing what is Evil. This list matches Revelation's list perfectly. The 10 Commandments found in Exodus 20 are the Commandments of God. Keep the SABBATH Holy is one of them and obviously one that really pleases Father. What is the true SABBATH? Do not let any one tell you it is anything other than Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. Ok, how do we keep from defiling it? Now you need to turn 2 chapters forward and look at Isaiah 58. Jesus spells out how He wants you to act on the Sabbath 24 hour period. He makes it very clear in verse 3 not to have your business open during that 24 hour period!!! Unless you are feeding and clothing the poor at no charge!!! And, if you have employees helping you with that service they are not required to be there and you can not pay your employees. They have to want to come to serve the Lord. If you do this on the Sabbath, you must use it as a tool to teach the Truth about how to be saved. The Gospel of Jesus Christ while you are serving them for free. This is exactly why the "Western Nations chose to ignore the TRUE SABBATH. They do not want to close down between Friday nite to Saturday nite. Is this a requirement of Salvation? Think of it this way. There is only One that Jesus wants you to love and HONOR more than Himself or your Christian Brethren and that is Father. Father told you in Isaiah 56:4, rest of 56, and all of chapter 58 what pleases Him. Be careful not to defile the SABBATH, you may be the half of the Church that Jesus says "Depart from Me I never knew you." Remember, Father comes down to live with Jesus and Us after the 1,000 year Millennium is over. Jesus does not want a bunch of people hanging out beside Father for Eternity who did not try to please Him. Read it for yourselves.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It is a indeed a problem for any subsequent reading of the texts to presume that they are historically reliable when the premise becomes that all the history that has led up to them, and within which they are all based, are not historically reliable.
It is not a question of man's wisdom superceding God's however, for it is not man's philosophies that are challenging the reliability of the Genesis account, but it is our own eyes and experience of the world that is demonstrating that a literalist account of Genesis does not correspond with known and measurable physical events in the universe.

I don't know about known and measurable. Science, with an agenda of its own, measures data and comes up with global warming, and blames it on man. So I don't know about trusting Science either. (It's true that the globe is warming and cooling, but it's not provable that man is responsible for it!)

It is not our own desires and our wills that we must let go of in order to conform to a literalist view of Genesis, but our santity, or sense of logic and proportion and the belief that God is not an arbitrary trickster who has built a world in which our our abilities to make sense of it cannot be trusted.
We must let go of our trust in God who makes rules and laws that govern the universe, and place our trust in the kind of creator that blots out tomorrow what he set forth yesterday, a world indeed where God did not complete creation on the sixth day and enter into a seventh day of rest, but an entirely unpredictable world, where on the eight day, all the rules and natural laws set up on the sixth become reneged

A literalist reading of the creation story does not challenge God's authority but it does contradict his fidelity to his creation. It does challenge the concept that God is a being who remains faithful to his creation that he loves, for there is no longer any consistency or any ability to discern his laws and his order working within it.
Indeed, accepting the advances of science and historical and literary methods of understanding the Bible does pose challenges to its historical reliability, and those who deny or downplay that are not fooling anyone but themselves.

But those who insist on the literacy of the Genesis account in the face of all the evidence to the contrary are challenging the character of God himself, and of how he has revealed himself to us over the past two thousand years.

I accept what the Bible says, what the Bible tries to convey. Others want to say it conveys more than what we believe it does.

 

[elliott95]

I don't know about known and measurable. Science, with an agenda of its own, measures data and comes up with global warming, and blames it on man. So I don't know about trusting Science either. (It's true that the globe is warming and cooling, but it's not provable that man is responsible for it!)

No, Jesse, science does not have an agenda of its own.
Individual scientists have agendas, and they are parts of communities that have agendas, and people with agendas lie, even as scientists.
Communities and social forces shape the minds of scientists even, for being an outsider to communities, even the liberal, left-leaning 'tolerant' ones of universities, are not kind to those who do not share their agenda.

I am in political forums regularly to blast against those agendas. That is the place to do that kind of thing.

But here it is all about theology, and popes, as educated men, understand fully that the future of Christianity does not lie with a willing suspension of disbelief when it comes to placing a literalist reading of scripture over and above the known and knowable measurements of the universe.

It is not a manner of personal opinion and pride in man's wisdom over God's wisdom that the popes all fully understand and believe that the age of the universe is measured in light years rather than millennium, in thousands of millions of years rather than 6 days plus the Biblical sacred history that follows. They do not have an ant-Christian agenda, not even the current one with his liberal Jesuit tendencies that likely neither you nor I share with him.

I accept what the Bible says, what the Bible tries to convey. Others want to say it conveys more than what we believe it does.

If we are all Creationist as believers in the Creator God, we all believe in what the Bible is trying to convey. That would include those labeled as heretics here by certain others, such as including the popes and myself, and it includes those who have been deemed to be holding simplistic, childish, even wooden interpretations of scripture, who in turn are absolutely certain that they have the truth about Scripture in their back pockets.

To the extent that we honestly post here as Christian adherants of the Nicene Creed, we are all accepting of what the Bible says.