Is the Bible reliable?

[BobRyan]

One can only respond with an "Oh dear" and the facts to posts #355, #356, and #357, but the facts seem to matter not at all in the arguments you've constructed in your posts, BobRyan.

Until you read the post and notice the details of the text you are so carefully avoiding.

Easier to notice that problem than you seem to have imagined.

The facts as we have them from geology, physics, and astronomy point to the earth being much more than a few thousands of years old

Again -- it appears you are not following the details in that discussion.

1. I do not argue that the rocks are only 6,000 years old since the text itself says "waters covered the surface of the deep".

2. You are appealing to an agenda outside the text as if assumptions about nature - extrapolating backwards to pre-history are more to be trusted than the text itself.

3. My argument all through the thread has been that it is not the text that is causing people to argue against the 7 day timeline - but rather some external-to-the-text agenda.

You seem to want to confirm that point - while appearing to object to my raising it.

The sciences mentioned above present consistent coherent explanations of observed phenomena

But they are only guessing - especially given that fact that we now know that neutrino interaction with radioactive material can affect rates of decay thought to be immutable.

Which means you have at best "guesswork" placed in opposition to the text of scripture.

while the young-earth-creationist proponents seek to cast doubt and uncertainty about the facts while not offering any coherent and consistent explanation of them other than appeals to miracles which are akin to ad-hoc invocations of God

For the atheist -- the great "sin" is to claim "God did it" - on any subject at any time. You seem to agree at least to a degree that this is a sin. But that is not what Moses was thinking. Nor did his contemporary readers suspect such a notion was accurate. Thus you do not make your case from the text - while you claim that the Holy Spirit is speaking it.

Which one do you want to hold as true?

As we all know the "God did it" claim is being made for the talking donkey, the virgin birth, the god-man Jesus Christ, the 7 day creation week. The very thing that atheist will tell us is most to be avoided.

to explain away observable facts.

No one here is "observing the Genesis event" not atheists, not theistic evolutionists, not creationists. We are not talking about observing it, unless one of us is Moses shown the vent in vision by God.

I will not, in this post, present geology or physics evidences pointing to an ancient earth of several billions of years in age but I will point to one set of observations pointing to stars and galaxies of stars having an apparent age in the tens of billions of years.

Again - you are not paying attention to the thread posts and details in that statement.

1. I never claimed that the 7 day timeline in Genesis 1:2-2:3 describes the origin of the entire universe in that same timeline. Genesis 1:1 is about the entire universe.. but Genes 1:2-2:3 is just about this earth, life on this earth, our sun, our moon.

2. Even at that -- the atheists themselves admit that in the big bang the universe expands faster than the speed of light at the start. I suspect that is more true than they imagine to themselves.

In any cause the speculation that they offer is just guesswork - and your own response is to consistently affirm my claim that you are not appealing to the text and its 7 day timeline to refute it - you are looking for some outside agenda... one that neither Moses nor his contemporary readers could possibly have "read into the text" as you are doing.

In case you have genuine interest in your argument "from science" I have started a thread for that very purpose -- #1

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

His part in the discussion was well within the confines of pretty standard ideas about the development of the universe, although I think he did show himself to be naive in thinking that the question of God was in some way solved or really even impacted by showing that evolution gave us evidence that it is possible through natural means to build up complexity.

.

Then you are using more Bible-avoidance than he appears to be using. In Matt 4 the "proof" that Christ is God is said to be established if he can turn some rock into a form of living organic material - bread.

It is atheism that claims that this is a natural property in rocks - to become living cells.

It is the Bible that claims that God alone is the author of life and that this is not simply an ability that rocks have. Dawkins is right to argue that the Bible is making a claim about God as creator that is not compatible at all with the competing story of origins so well accepted by atheists today.

Even your own objection to the 7 day timeline in the text of scripture is made by ignoring and avoiding the text of scripture and bringing in an outside agenda to eisegete your preference into it. A preference that Moses would not have had and his contemporary readers would not have had.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[elliott95]

Why, precisely, is belief in things that are by definition undetectable nuanced rather than merely improbable?

It is not that they are by definition nuanced, but that the examples that you gave of Dawkins accepting the evidence of telescopes and microscopes was not nuanced at all. By comparison nuance would be the acceptance of phenomena that are not merely extensions of our sensory capacity.

One can argue for the existence of God on purely philosophical grounds but those arguments are no more proof of God's existence that would be similar arguments in favour of some other undetectable entity.

That is right. It has been generally accepted that there is no possibility of an absolute philosophical proof of God since at least the time of Kant.

For example, we do believe in a soul/spirit yet such cannot be detected by the senses or any instrumentation with which the senses are augmented and the existence of a soul/spirit is not necessitated by logic.

The better arguments and the better logic do support God. If we no longer believe that, why are we here, acting as if we still do?

To argue that Richard Dawkins' arguments are untrue because he does not use the word epistemology, does not discuss why logic is valid, or does not offer a fully satisfactory theory of consciousness is also unhelpful.

To note that his arguments are structured against a fundamentalist, literalist understanding of the Bible IS however helpful.
We have just spent so many pages of bandwidth arguing that the Bible is best understood as a spiritual and literary work. The periodic table and rate of gene mutation therefore are rather trite ways of understanding a work of art.
They are the wrong tools for dealing with the Bible and the faith, as both you and I are already on record as defining the Bible.
Brilliant doctors are not always very good with money or good mechanics, and even worse when they think that there is a pill to fix their financial situation, or apply a tongue depressor to diagnose a carburator. For scientists like Dawkins of even Darwin therefore to reject the Bible on the basis that it does not accurately reflect the fossil record, is therefore, frankly kind of dumb.
Let literalists debate literalists, and may they both lose.

 

[BobRyan]

To note that his arguments are structured against a fundamentalist, literalist understanding of the Bible IS however helpful.
We have just spent so many pages of bandwidth arguing that the Bible is best understood as a spiritual and literary work.

Sadly - that is not the way the Bible limits itself "in the text" rather it is an outside "agenda" people bring to it.

It is this "reality" -- this issue of actually looking at the text and admitting to what you find there - that wrecks the T.E. imaginative substitute for it.

Atheists notice that detail.

So also do the Bible believing Christians - scholars in all ages.

How inconvenient - yet how nice it would have been for the T.E. position if the Bible only contained vagaries, allusions, metaphors, poetry. So then no real "virgin birth", Resurrection, talking donkey, fiery furnace, ascension into heaven, 7 day creation details inconveniently included in important areas like Law, and the Gospel.

Is it any wonder that when the actual text comes up - many T.E.'s flee.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[elliott95]

I already noted that I reality test the Bible.
That is my outside source and outside agenda.

 

[BobRyan]

I already noted that I reality test the Bible.
That is my outside source and outside agenda.

BTW - I do appreciate your being up front and out in the open about wrenching the Bible (or simply dismissing it entirely if needed) to fit your external agenda.

That is the atheist hermeneutic as well.

IT helps us understand why Catholics have such a low opinion of sola scrptura testing of anything.

But most Christians prefer actual exegesis to the eisegetical "insert" of whatever your outside agenda "needs"

 

[elliott95]

That is the atheist hermeneutic as well.

But most Christians prefer actual exegesis to the eisegetical "insert" of whatever your outside agenda "needs"

I would hope that everybody would subject their ideas to reality testing.
If atheists truly did, they would realize the faith involved in putting one foot in front of the other, as if there an actual good reason to do so.

 

[BobRyan]

I would hope that everybody would subject their ideas to reality testing.

Our atheist friends declare that their "story" about origins is "reality" and that the Bible is myth and fiction. Thus they hope we subject the Bible to "their reality" just as they do.

I beg to differ.

But for many/most Christians (especially those inclined to actual objective exegesis and sola scriptura Bible testing of doctrine ) wrenching the Bible out of joint each time your outside agenda "needs to do it" is a proposition that is DOA.

So "For them" the question is always "what does the Word of God say" not "What would be a convenient wrench/twist/re-make of the Word of God for your agenda?".

And that gets us to -- what does the "text say".

[FONT=&quot]Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him.
[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.[/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.


And MC went way out on a limb recently claiming that the RCC believes that text to be the WORD of the Holy Spirit - authored by Him etc.

That leaves a POV somewhere between rock and a hard place for the RCC T.E. or any other Christian T.E.

For those Christian T.E's --- in case you have genuine interest in your argument "from science" and philosophy I have started a thread for that very purpose -- #1

in Christ,

Bob

 

[elliott95]

Reality does not differ according to belief.
The shark bites through the skin of the unbeliever and the believer with equal effectiveness.
The shark is indifferent to the reality we attest to.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why, precisely, is belief in things that are by definition undetectable nuanced rather than merely improbable? One can argue for the existence of God on purely philosophical grounds but those arguments are no more proof of God's existence that would be similar arguments in favour of some other undetectable entity. For example, we do believe in a soul/spirit yet such cannot be detected by the senses or any instrumentation with which the senses are augmented and the existence of a soul/spirit is not necessitated by logic. Similarly with angels (good of fallen). To argue that materialism is untrue because it does not acknowledge proposition X about undetectable entity X-prime is unhelpful. To argue that Richard Dawkins' arguments are untrue because he does not use the word epistemology, does not discuss why logic is valid, or does not offer a fully satisfactory theory of consciousness is also unhelpful. It is unhelpful in part because both Dawkins and ourselves work on the epistemic presupposition that the laws of logic are valid and we do so because the laws of logic are demonstrable in concrete cases time and time again and their failure is not demonstrable in concrete examples. And human consciousness clearly exists even if one has no adequate theory to explain it. In fact our ontology of God is fundamentally inexplicable beyond the use of a number of words and associated concepts which are in themselves irreducible. Thus we speak of the simplicity of God meaning what exactly - that he is uncreated eternal unchanging without body parts or passions? And what do those terms mean really? If we need to invent a vocabulary of the infinite to discuss God then aren't we thereby acknowledging that our concept of God ends in impenetrable mystery and that we thereby are talking about what we do not know and cannot ultimately describe? That we meet similar difficulties with ultimate categories even in the description of reality - those things we do detect with the senses augmented, and they are, by instruments - is acknowledged by all of us (including Dr Dawkins) and in acknowledging it we do not thereby empty reality of any meaning (by meaning I mean coherent and comprehensible description).

Dr Dawkins says many things that I think are not especially cogent or especially valuable but his arguments against theism in general and christian theism in particular are not empty nonsense in every case and even in the cases where he argues against what seems to be a straw man (such as his arguments against "creation science" and "intelligent design" as if those were the only tenable christian positions) have a certain validity when applied to those who present their Christian faith as if it were exactly congruent to the straw men Dawkins demolishes. Take for example this video clip ...

Richard dawkins stunned by stupidity - YouTube

It is true that the interviewer in the clip is far from the "best" that christianity has to offer intellectually speaking, but he is not very far from the faith held by many christians.

One ought to note that Richard Dawkins is not the "best" that atheism or agnosticism has to offer but he is prominent in youtube debates and writes a great many books that offer some cogent arguments against specific expressions of christian theism.

As I've observed in previous posts, I do not endorse Dawkins' positions but I also cannot dismiss his stated views as stupid.

Why, precisely, is belief in things that are by definition undetectable nuanced rather than merely improbable?

It is not that they are by definition nuanced

My sentence says that the definition of God, angels, spirits, and souls is inclusive of fundamental undetectability. I did not say or intend to say that the nuance was part of the definition. The "nuance" is descriptive of the uncanny undetectability that is inherent in the definition of these things and thus places them beyond the world view of a philosophical materialist, such as Richard Dawkins.

, but that the examples that you gave of Dawkins accepting the evidence of telescopes and microscopes was not nuanced at all.

Although I did in fact give some examples of detection by means of instrumentation in Dawkins' words recorded in the video clips there was also acknowledgement of the existence of objective-truth and the correctness of the rules-of-logic in Dawkins' words in the same clips. One ought not to base a critique of Dawkins' knowledge of epistemology on what I write, one ought to go to the sources (which I provided by way of links to video clips) and see what the man says for himself. This discussion is, after all, about the (in my opinion) overstated critique offered in posts in this thread of Richard Dawkins' intellect and philosophical arguments contra-christian-theism.

...

To argue that Richard Dawkins' arguments are untrue because he does not use the word epistemology, does not discuss why logic is valid, or does not offer a fully satisfactory theory of consciousness is also unhelpful.

To note that his arguments are structured against a fundamentalist, literalist understanding of the Bible IS however helpful.

Yes, it is helpful to notice who he is arguing with in each of the clips provided in this thread and see that his arguments are directed at the statements of his interlocutor. When he debates a young-earth-creationist he argues against their stated views. When he debates Anglican bishop Rowan Williams (former archbishop of Canterbury) his arguments are directed at the undetectable entities and theological constructs raised by Roan Williams and the moderator of the debate. All things considered, the debate with Rowan Williams was far more interesting than were his debates with intelligent-design advocates and young-earth-creationism evangelists.

We have just spent so many pages of bandwidth arguing that the Bible is best understood as a spiritual and literary work. The periodic table and rate of gene mutation therefore are rather trite ways of understanding a work of art.

They are the wrong tools for dealing with the Bible and the faith, as both you and I are already on record as defining the Bible.

Brilliant doctors are not always very good with money or good mechanics, and even worse when they think that there is a pill to fix their financial situation, or apply a tongue depressor to diagnose a carburator. For scientists like Dawkins of even Darwin therefore to reject the Bible on the basis that it does not accurately reflect the fossil record, is therefore, frankly kind of dumb.

Let literalists debate literalists, and may they both lose.

Well, one must admit that this diversion into the education and intellect of Richard Dawkins is a diversion away from the core matter of this thread. It was, however stimulating and interesting, and provided an opportunity for us all to examine some of the themes that I've raised in other threads and that speak to the core question of this thread. "Is the bible reliable?" We're asked and we have been wondering out loud what those words actually mean and imply when they are unpacked. We've looked as Richard Dawkins' stated views which do raise significant questions about the kind of reliability we can truthfully ascribe to sacred scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

Reality does not differ according to belief.
The shark bites through the skin of the unbeliever and the believer with equal effectiveness.
The shark is indifferent to the reality we attest to.

Indeed. The 7 day creation week happened in real history - even if Dawkins does not like it.

I do not object to that sort of statement of fact.

The same is true of the obvious statement in Gen 1:2-2:3 for the 7 day literal week as the creation week - doctrine on origins taught by Moses.

[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.3 [/FONT]
3 James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.

Which of course agrees with one of your points Elliot.

Well, one must admit that this diversion into the education and intellect of Richard Dawkins is a diversion away from the core matter of this thread. It was, however stimulating and interesting, and provided an opportunity for us all to examine some of the themes that I've raised in other threads and that speak to the core question of this thread. "Is the bible reliable?" We're asked and we have been wondering out loud what those words actually mean and imply when they are unpacked. .

And I think we can all now finally agree with the obvious answer for Genesis 1-2



in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

Poetic mythology intended by God to teach us. What does it teach you?

 

[BobRyan]

As noted above - no serious scholar at any world class university takes seriously the idea that Moses intended to write poetic mythology - but rather was writing a real account of history - 24 hour days.

And in their view - he was simply wrong.

[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.

Earlier you sated that the bible is instead of being "poetic myth" -- the actual Word of God the Holy Spirit.

And now we have Bible scholars telling us that not one of them takes seriously the wild notion that the text is not trying to convey a literal 7 day week.

The obvious point of the discussion -- apparent for all objective unbiased Bible students by now. Hence the title of the thread. You can be "in the tank" for blind faith evolutionism - or you can accept the Word of God as reliable - but not both.

To express Dawkins "flying spaghetti monster" myth/fiction in poetic terms does not argue for it being reliable or something in which to place your trust as if we can do it "because... err...umm... because it is poetic after all" (in Dawkins case).

As James Barr writes - the Genesis account is intended as a historic account - of actual facts, a 7 day literal week.. and in his mind - the writer of it is simply ignorant/wrong by his standards.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Clearly the magisterium of the Catholic church affirms without reservation that the scriptures have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. As well as stating that everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind".

And by that --- you really mean...

Poetic mythology intended by God to teach us. What does it teach you?

Really?? fiction? myth? poetic-or-not. (and as Dr Barr points out in Genesis 1 - not).

What sort of double speak would that be??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Reading your post it seems that your stated position is that God cannot be compared to an omnipotent, omniscient, loving creator entity called "the flying spaghetti monster" because the name is absurd. Is that the substance of your objection?

.

Maybe your reason for missing Dawkins' argument that the God of the Bible is no more to be trusted than a Christian would trust a myth/fiction about a "flying spaghetti monster" is that you consider the Bible in just that way??

Are you arguing that as a "good comparison" rather than the "silly thing to do" that Dawkins and the rest of us admit - because in your case you consider the Bible itself to be just that sort of thing to begin with?

If that was what you were trying to say - I admit - I missed it.

Poetic mythology intended by God to teach us. What does it teach you?

All the more justification for the title of this thread and OP.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[WindStaff]

Some may want to crucify me for saying this, but the Bible did not simply fall from the heavens, it has been translated many times over, has been handled by a great many people for a great many centuries, does in fact have inserts added within it by the authority of papal Rome, and so on.

Now, none of these things are wrong. Even as a protestant, it would be sort of redundant to be in arms about the additions of past popes, but when you look at it from a certain angle-
you may notice that you are putting near worship into 1000's of years old parchment.

The point to be made is that while God's teachings have immortal value, God's Spirit did not stop with scripture.
I think that there is such a thing as overly prioritizing scripture- something one can't do by accident because it is a hard to, but something that a lot of churches are nonetheless doing. It is evidenced when Christians become frightened that their Bibles may have adulteration in them- it doesn't really matter.

 

[elliott95]

Some may want to crucify me for saying this, but the Bible did not simply fall from the heavens, it has been translated many times over, has been handled by a great many people for a great many centuries, does in fact have inserts added within it by the authority of papal Rome, and so on.

Now, none of these things are wrong. Even as a protestant, it would be sort of redundant to be in arms about the additions of past popes, but when you look at it from a certain angle-
you may notice that you are putting near worship into 1000's of years old parchment.

The point to be made is that while God's teachings have immortal value, God's Spirit did not stop with scripture.
I think that there is such a thing as overly prioritizing scripture- something one can't do by accident because it is a hard to, but something that a lot of churches are nonetheless doing. It is evidenced when Christians become frightened that their Bibles may have adulteration in them- it doesn't really matter.

Indeed Scripture is quite clear that the departure of Jesus was necessary because it made possible the outpouring of the Spirit of Christ onto his Church.

I think it does matter that we strive to find the best and most authentic translations of Scripture as possible. Even if not about history, they are a record of the way that God's chosen have interacted with God throughout the last several thousand years. We want to see how that Sacred History has progressed. The trajectory of history points out the direction in which we are going, simply by showing us where we have been, every step along the way.

Also, to believe in the outpouring of the Spirit is to have faith that Scripture has been the means through which God has communicated with his people throughout the ages. The Bible is the central way in which the Spirit of God has been out-poured upon us, according to faith.
I think as well, when it comes to the jots and the iotas, for the spiritual leadership of God's people, preservation of those jots and iotas contains insights imprinted into the text by the Spirit Himself. Every jot and iota is a doorway to a possible relationship with every other jot and iota that has been written into other passages in the Bible.
The structure of the Bible is vertical.

 

[MoreCoffee]

When asked on video what He thinks of the Christian God - God of the Bible - by one who is not fundamentalist Christian at all, nor Christian at all... Dawkins specifically equated God with the "flying spaghetti monster".

The reason that "Some" like Dawkins' bible bashing is that they trust their own magisterium above the Bible - and the less trustworthy the Bible is shown to be the less likely it will be used as a sola-scriptura rule to which all religions must be held accountable. The more likely this or that magisterium can take its place.

Those who join them in doing so fail to see the big picture.

in Christ,

Bob

Reading your post it seems that your stated position is that God cannot be compared to an omnipotent, omniscient, loving creator entity called "the flying spaghetti monster" because the name is absurd. Is that the substance of your objection?

And how do you get from Richard Dawkins' views to the Magisterium (presumably of the Catholic Church)? Clearly the magisterium of the Catholic church affirms without reservation that the scriptures have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. As well as stating that everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind".

Then how is it that you argument finds it so necessary to avoid the text that you claim to exegete when arguing against the 7 day timeline found in Gen 1:2-2:3 Ex 20:8-11??

Why wouldn't your argument against the 7 day timeline being coming from that text itself when you make claims about what it states? Since as you say - you believe it is the Holy Spirit that is the author ... that is speaking.

in Christ,

Bob

It's obvious that when your statements against the Catholic Church are shown to be false you move on to yet another set of smoke and mirrors distractions so that the falsification of your claim can be buried under a mass of irrelevant text. You ought to acknowledge that the claims you made about the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding sacred scripture (shown in bold text) were wrong (demonstrated in red bold text) but so far you have failed to do that.

 

[BobRyan]

It's obvious that when your statements against the Catholic Church are shown to be false you move on to yet another set of smoke and mirrors distractions so that the falsification of your claim can be buried under a mass of irrelevant text.

How sad that you now turn upon the very text you claim to have interpreted for us as not speaking about a 7 day creation week - and the real 7 days.

How odd as well.

You ought to acknowledge that the claims you made about the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding sacred scripture (shown in bold text) were wrong (demonstrated in red bold text) but so far you have failed to do that.

You called it "poetic fiction"

I call the Bible "reliable".

Is this where you wish to address the question asked of you??

==================== in this post the two MC self-conflicted views are contrasted.

Clearly the magisterium of the Catholic church affirms without reservation that the scriptures have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And that the books of both the Old and New Testaments in their entirety, with all their parts, are sacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself. As well as stating that everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore "all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind".

And by that --- you really mean...

Poetic mythology intended by God to teach us. What does it teach you?

Really?? fiction? myth? poetic-or-not. (and as Dr Barr points out in Genesis 1 - not).

What sort of double speak would that be??

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


how then is the text rendered that you consider to be sooo iirrelevant in one post while claiming to interpret the 7 day timeline out of it - in another?

[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

It's obvious that when your statements against the Catholic Church are shown to be false

That is debatable.

I claim that holding the Bible to be "trustworthy" in actual test cases such as this one from Gen 1:2-2:3 and Ex 20:8-11 regarding the literal 7 day week of creation - involves things like

1. NOT calling the bible "poetic fiction" or "poetic myth" or "flying spaghetti monster-like-stories".

2. NOT dismissing the texts that speak about a literal 7 day creation week as supposedly "irrelevant" while at the same time trying to build a case that they do not declare the origins doctrine be creation of all life on earth in a literal 7 day creation week.

So then -- just stating "the obvious".

you move on to yet another set of smoke and mirrors distractions so that the falsification of your claim can be buried under a mass of irrelevant text.

"That" is your "solution"??

To --- "do it anyway"???

You ought to acknowledge that the claims you made about the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding sacred scripture (shown in bold text) were wrong (demonstrated in red bold text) but so far you have failed to do that.

You posted claims - but I am asking you to prove the reality of the claim in actual fact - using the test case of the subject of the OP.

You seem to object to the idea of having to prove your assertions.

It is not at all clear that the facts in evidence so far are in favor of your claims.

in Christ,

Bob