Is the Bible reliable?

[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.

What universities would those be? Specifically. Would Notre Dame or Georgetown qualify?

Not sure if they would.

Are you trying to say that poetic myth cannot teach us the truths God intended to teach?

Am actually saying that not only do Christian scholars around the world accept the historic narrative, but even the world-class university Hebrew scholars according to James Barr who is one of them... and so also do atheists like Darwin - all agree that the text is not a poem, not written as fiction, not written in symbols... but rather the writer is presenting historic fact to his readers.

The fact that atheists reject the historicity of the facts described changes nothing.

I have questioned your definition of literal, and your understanding of "week".

Without ever addressing the iron clad "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord made".

You are wrenching the text to an 'extreme' in service to an outside agenda that even the Hebrew professors of the world-class universities would never condone.

Your arguments against the 7 day timeline found in the text - are made in spite of the text - not because of it.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[gluadys]

They would not have known that God cannot create the world and all life on it in a real 7 day week. The would not have know that something like Moses' staff cannot become a snake if God wills it etc or that the magicians and the devil in Eden could not do some "exceptional things" with snakes.

And now we meet Bob Ryan's world of eisegesis. Read the text of Genesis 3 over several times. There is no devil in Eden. Not anywhere in the text. There are four and only four speaking characters: the snake, Eve, Adam and God. No devil. And there is an unidentified number of entities in the background to whom God speaks in 3:22 when he says the man (Adam) has become "like one of us". Still no devil unless you believe the devil was included in that group. But that would be speculation and eisegesis again.

 

[gluadys]

By reading the Bible.

in the case of the bread - Jesus is sitting at the table - eating and drinking -- no blood is dripping from Christ into the cup and no disciple sees actual Blood in the cup - as even the RCC admits.

And what difference would that make in the minds of the disciples? Why would they have to see blood dripping to accept Jesus' affirmation that the cup contained his blood?

 

[BobRyan]

Are you trying to say that poetic myth cannot teach us the truths God intended to teach? In that case, I vehemently disagree. "Myth" does not mean "untrue".

I think you have found a wonderful bridge between Catholicism and Protestantism. Protestants generally consider the teaching of Popes and ecumenical councils in the RCC tradition to be nothing more than "myth". I think many of us assumed the the RC members would not view that has a positive thing - but you seem to be saying that this is held in high regard by Catholics. And I for one am happy to hear that we do have some common ground on that point.

I have never questioned whether it was a literal 7 day week.

Neither have I.

I have questioned your definition of literal, and your understanding of "week".

I have not struggled with that concept as you seem to -- most of us on the planet actually have a pretty good understanding of what a week is - I am not saying you can not imagine what you wish - but the world is pretty comfortable with the concept once you step outside and look around a bit.

I am not in the tank for blind faith evolutionism any more than I am in the tank for blind faith Bible-only thought. Both are extremes, and I disagree with elements of both while supporting the facts of both.

Some agnostics might agree with you on that point.

Who IS Christ to you? Is He God?

He is God who created all life on earth in 7 days according to His word. A Word that is soooo clear that even the Hebrew professors of all world-class universities are in apparent agreement that this was the "intent of the author" whether or not they agree with the historicity.

How "instructive" for the unbiased objective Bible student to hear that the obvious meaning seen in the text is exactly the intent of the author.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The issue is how systematic are we when we choose what to interpret as real and what to interpret as symbolic.

Some Christians make it a virtue to hold to a "literal" interpretation by which they mean both "free from symbolic meaning" and "real/factual/historical". In such a case one would have to ask, "if Adam and Eve were real persons, is not the consecrated bread really Christ's body and blood?" How could one possibly argue that one is real and the other symbolic?

By reading the Bible.

in the case of the bread - Jesus is sitting at the table - eating and drinking -- no blood is dripping from Christ into the cup and no disciple sees actual Blood in the cup - as even the RCC admits.

And in John 6 Jesus said "I AM the bread that CAME down out of heaven" - nobody there is a piece of bread talking to them and the text does not say they do.

James Barr and his fellow scholars would also not have the text speaking of a talking piece of bread in John 6 nor do they claim that the Gospels declare that Jesus turned into bread at the incarnation and fell as a manna on Mary.

Your appeal to the fallacy of absurdum does not work even with your fellow evolutionists like Barr.

In Matt 16 Christ condemns the disciples for failing to understand that the symbol of bread and leaven stand for the teaching of the Pharisees.

In John 6 Jesus states clearly "literal flesh is pointless it is my WORDS that have spirit and life" when talking about the symbol he just used of his being the BREAD of Life.

But there is no text in all of scripture that condemns anyone for thinking that Adam and Eve are real.

Paul argues doctrine and behavior on the "detail" that "Adam was first created then Eve" and that "Eve was first to sin" And that Adam was the first human to sin and that all humanity are subject to death only due to that ONE man's sin.

There is no text in all of scripture that condemns the idea that Adam and Eve were real.

Here again I think that argument that Barr makes is consistent with the literature. Even though he personally rejects the historicity of the Bible he still admits to the obvious details about the literature and the intended meaning of the text.
[/quote]

And what difference would that make in the minds of the disciples? Why would they have to see blood dripping to accept Jesus' affirmation that the cup contained his blood?

If somone hands you a hammer and says "this is my blood" while seemingly being in fine health, not bleeding and no blood on the hammer - do you take them to be speaking literally 'anyway'??

If so ... you are one of the more unusual people I have met.

In John 6 when Jesus said he was the bread that had already floated down from heaven- a number of of devoted followers leave him in disgust, while the disciples remain because in John 6 he explains the meaning by saying "literal flesh is worthless it is my WORD that has life".

And so Peter responds to the pointed question "where would we go Lord -- YOU have the WORDS of life"...

And in Matt 16 the disciples get hammered for not accepting the symbol of bread as being the symbol for 'teaching" -- long before the last supper.

Turns out - this just is not that hard to see the obvious if you read the text.

What is interesting to me is that statement about all the leading Hebrew professors in the world-class universities more or less agreeing with you that the intent of the author in Gen 1:2-2:3 being a literal 7 day week the same as we have today.

Sort of a "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord made.." direct equivalence, accepted as the meaning that the author intended to convey to his readers.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

And now we meet Bob Ryan's world of eisegesis. Read the text of Genesis 3 over several times. There is no devil in Eden. Not anywhere in the text.

Until you read the statement made about that in Rev 12 regarding the devil being the "serpent of old".

More than that the devil is stated to have been in the "Garden" in Is 14, Ezek 28.

And of course the SEVEN days of Gen 1:2-2:3 is mentioned elsewhere as well - in legal code, in stone "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord made".

Sadly for your objections to the 7 day timeline- you already admitted that even you can see that the author of Gen 1:2-2:3 intended to convey a 7 day literal week as the time frame - to his contemporary readers. Your sidestep to the subject of the talking snake does not remove that fact.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

We must understand that the Science/Religion dichotomy is a false one. If Science appears to contradict Scripture, then Science is wrong in its understanding of what Scripture tells us.

So then the alchemists were wrong about life popping up out of dirty rags?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I don't see one place where MoreCoffee said or implied "fiction".

I see where James Barr admits that pretty much all Hebrew Scholars at world-class unversitied admit to the obvious fact that the writer of Gen 1:2-2:3 wrote a history of origins that his contemporary readers would accept as a literal 7 day creation - fact.

And they do so even while they themselves are opposed to the historicity of such a doctrine on origins.

You seem to prefer whatever MC comes up with ....

To each his own.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I think this is an important point. In my teen years I was confronted with a choice between my "liberal" Sunday church environment and a more "evangelical" version in my after-school Bible club. A key element in moving away from the latter was the complete absence of a sense of history.

Yet you still admit to the Bible proclaiming a literal 7 day week in Genesis 1:2-2:3 as do all Hebrew scholars in all world-class universities.

And how about your "liberal sunday church" ?? Did they also hold to the blatantly obvious detail that the bible teaches a literal 7 day creation week - the same obvious point that conservative Bible scholars admit to and that all the Hebrew professors of world-class universities admit to??

I.E .. the subject of this thread when it comes to a test case for the reliability of the Bible?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[gluadys]

That's what you like to believe, but I disagree. There's lots of Christian scientists who disavow anthropogenic climate change, too. Is Global Warming a Hoax? | RealClearPolitics

Back to topic.

No, there are a few Christian scientists who have joined the "climate change is a hoax" scam. But there are lots of Christian scientists who do not prostitute their faith to embrace denialism.

I am not a scientist. But I have had more than the average opportunity to connect with scientists working on climate change, and also some non-scientist researchers following the investigations. One scientist was for a time president of the science panel of the IPCC---and a Christian. Another was head of the Department of the Environment for the federal Government of Canada, until her retirement. And a Christian. And she could tell us of her personal encounters with the effects of climate change in the Canadian Arctic. A third was her assistant whom I met at a workshop for Christians explaining to his colleagues in a Christian Reformed congregation what is happening. One of the journalists is a now retired theologian who has attended every international gathering on developing an international agreement on dealing with climate change since 1992. He has an encyclopedic knowledge of the details of climate change. One project he took on at every such meeting was an interfaith prayer service. Another is a prize-winning investigative journalist who has written a powerful book on climate change called Sea Sick which documents the effects of climate change on the oceans. She too, is a Christian.

I would add that none of these people spoke in a context where they needed to kowtow to anybody else's agenda. They spoke what they knew from their own experience and studies. And since I met them at different times and places, they were definitely not part of any conspiracy. But their message was consistent. Climate change is, bar none, the greatest challenge we have ever faced as a species--one that demands our staunchest commitment to the original mandate God gave us: Care for the garden.

And if I broaden my perspective beyond those few I met personally, it is easy to find many more Christians, many of them scientists, who are working hard to deal with the problems climate change will bring us, because they know it is not a hoax and we would be derelict in our responsibility to our children and grandchildren and indeed to every living thing on this planet to neglect this clear and present danger.

Have you even read anything on climate change which does not come from a denialist source? I will recommend again Sea Sick by Alanna Mitchell (a journalist specializing in writing about science) and A Geography of Hope by Chris Turner, a journalist from Calgary who traveled the world looking at the array of technology available for combatting climate change.

Your hoax list has no more integrity to it than the so-called evidences against evolution produced by evolution-deniers. It has no more integrity to it than the claims of tobacco companies who denied smoking causes cancer. In fact, it is many of the same people involved in both scams.

 

[gluadys]

He said he was in fact a Christian until his belief in evolutionism drove that out of him.


A distinction without a difference.

On the contrary, there is a good deal of difference. Evolution is first of all a fact of nature. Secondly it is a well-established theory of how evolution happens that is thoroughly scientific.

Darwinism, by your own definition is a religion.

I expect a person may embrace both.

I don't. My religion is Christianity. I am a Christian who accepts science. But I do not accept a different religion.

 

[gluadys]

We must understand that the Science/Religion dichotomy is a false one. If Science appears to contradict Scripture, then Science is wrong in its understanding of what Scripture tells us.
For example, people don't understand (at least many people) what the debate was between Galileo and the Catholic Church. It wasn't about whether the Earth was the center of the Solar System (or universe) as opposed to the thought that the Sun was the center. That had been figured out years before, though we didn't have instruments to prove it. The debate was whether it could be taught as fact, with certainty, as Galileo wanted (and did, in defiance of Church decree). That defiance is what landed him in hot water.

Of course, when science is wrong about what scripture tells us, it is likely because the theologians are also wrong.

And Galileo had good reason to want to teach the Copernican view as fact. He did have an instrument to prove it.

 

[gluadys]

If somone hands you a hammer and says "this is my blood" while seemingly being in fine health, not bleeding and no blood on the hammer - do you take them to be speaking literally 'anyway'??

No, but if it is a cup, filled with dark red liquid, offered by a person I have spent three years with, whom I have seen work miracles, and whom I believe is the promised Messiah and Son of God, why would I not believe his words?

 

[PeaceBWithU]

I don't think the Bible was literal events that happened, but there are truths that we can use to become more Godly and Christ-like.

 

[gluadys]

Until you read the statement made about that in Rev 12 regarding the devil being the "serpent of old".

The original author of Genesis 3 and the original readers did not have a reference to a manuscript that would not be written yet for over 1,000 years. There is nothing in the text of Genesis 3 to indicate the presence of the devil.

More than that the devil is stated to have been in the "Garden" in Is 14, Ezek 28.

They didn't have those texts to refer to either.

When you insert these texts anachronistically into Genesis 3, you are no longer exegeting, you are imposing on the text and its author something that was not possible for him to be aware of or intend to convey as part of his message.

Sure, God may have revealed to other writers at a later date that the devil really was in the garden in the guise of a snake.

But look at what this does to the text.

Written in a manner that conveys the literal existence of a snake (plainest simplest, most ordinary meaning) and accepted as such for hundreds of years, it is then given a new meaning by Isaiah and Ezekiel and John. Now the snake is no longer literally a snake. It is actually an allegorical figure denoting the devil.

If biblical writers under inspiration can turn a literal text into an allegory, looks like their modern descendants are in good company.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I don't think the Bible was literal events that happened, but there are truths that we can use to become more Godly and Christ-like.

learn if yhvh permits hebrew.

so much is so much more very simple when read in hebrew and learning what they knew from the Creator back then, (really; most of the threads subjects today wouldn't even exist!)

a lot of arguments just evaporate. (and some spring up from others even more fiercely then, from those who don't care for yhvh and yahushua, truth, or love of truth.)

i.e. it is often plain in the original when something is literal and when it is other. this is not understood in any case by the worldly, as it is written.

 

[MKJ]

No, there are a few Christian scientists who have joined the "climate change is a hoax" scam. But there are lots of Christian scientists who do not prostitute their faith to embrace denialism.

I am not a scientist. But I have had more than the average opportunity to connect with scientists working on climate change, and also some non-scientist researchers following the investigations. One scientist was for a time president of the science panel of the IPCC---and a Christian. Another was head of the Department of the Environment for the federal Government of Canada, until her retirement. And a Christian. And she could tell us of her personal encounters with the effects of climate change in the Canadian Arctic. A third was her assistant whom I met at a workshop for Christians explaining to his colleagues in a Christian Reformed congregation what is happening. One of the journalists is a now retired theologian who has attended every international gathering on developing an international agreement on dealing with climate change since 1992. He has an encyclopedic knowledge of the details of climate change. One project he took on at every such meeting was an interfaith prayer service. Another is a prize-winning investigative journalist who has written a powerful book on climate change called Sea Sick which documents the effects of climate change on the oceans. She too, is a Christian.

I would add that none of these people spoke in a context where they needed to kowtow to anybody else's agenda. They spoke what they knew from their own experience and studies. And since I met them at different times and places, they were definitely not part of any conspiracy. But their message was consistent. Climate change is, bar none, the greatest challenge we have ever faced as a species--one that demands our staunchest commitment to the original mandate God gave us: Care for the garden.

And if I broaden my perspective beyond those few I met personally, it is easy to find many more Christians, many of them scientists, who are working hard to deal with the problems climate change will bring us, because they know it is not a hoax and we would be derelict in our responsibility to our children and grandchildren and indeed to every living thing on this planet to neglect this clear and present danger.

Have you even read anything on climate change which does not come from a denialist source? I will recommend again Sea Sick by Alanna Mitchell (a journalist specializing in writing about science) and A Geography of Hope by Chris Turner, a journalist from Calgary who traveled the world looking at the array of technology available for combatting climate change.

Your hoax list has no more integrity to it than the so-called evidences against evolution produced by evolution-deniers. It has no more integrity to it than the claims of tobacco companies who denied smoking causes cancer. In fact, it is many of the same people involved in both scams.

I have to second all of this - rejecting the human element in climate change has nothing to do with being a Christian, and I have to say it seems to have almost everything to do with being an American.

Now - I do think in a very backwards way this is a problem caused by science - it is related in part to the lack of real independent voices in science, and the way science is used in public policy discussions and decisions - it doesn't show itself to be evidence based, to be neutral, or to come to the most rational compromise solutions. People don't feel that they can actually trust it.

Climate change however has a pretty unprecedented level of agreement, and I think what is more to the point is that it is not really a supposition at this point. We can see it, it is here, people are living with it every day. Ships getting through the Northwest Passage, no algae bloom in the North Atlantic this year - very serious stuff.

 

[BobRyan]

No, but if it is a cup, filled with dark red liquid, offered by a person I have spent three years with, whom I have seen work miracles, and whom I believe is the promised Messiah and Son of God, why would I not believe his words?

If you drink that red grape juice every passover and once again you are celebrating the passover with the same red grape juice that is nowhere near the viscosity of blood - well . and no sign at all that the person you are having dinner with - has a broken body or shed blood -- then when he says that the bread in your hand is his broken body and the grape juice in your cup is his spilt blood... you just "might" think he means it symbolically.

Especially since he hammered you not too long ago when you failed to get the reference to bread as the teaching of religious leaders opposed to the Gospel.

Just maybe...

Just maybe you would have figured that out...

you say no... But I think you would have.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I don't think the Bible was literal events that happened, but there are truths that we can use to become more Godly and Christ-like.

So then no virgin birth, no resurrection of Christ no bodily ascension of Christ into heaven for you?

How then do you even have the interest to participate on a Christian discussion board? Is it that you want to know how Christians resolve certain problems in philosophy and history??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The original author of Genesis 3 and the original readers did not have a reference to a manuscript that would not be written yet for over 1,000 years. There is nothing in the text of Genesis 3 to indicate the presence of the devil.

They didn't have those texts to refer to either.

When you insert these texts anachronistically into Genesis 3, you are no longer exegeting,

Exegesis involves the intended meaning of the author, the use of the same terms by the same author and the use of the same terms in the book -- the entire book.

I am still "exegeting" because a great many Christians think that the Bible is authored by the Holy Spirit due to things like 2Peter 1:20-21.

And obviously - the contemporary reader - had Moses to talk to about "what he saw" in vision.

You are simply using "any ol excuse will do" grasping for straws trying to avoid the 7 day timeline you already admitted to.

(A tough job given the OP on this thread).

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

you are imposing on the text and its author something that was not possible for him to be aware of or intend to convey as part of his message.

if Moses is inspired by the Holy Spirit to write after seeing the events in vision - as 2Peter 1:20-21 then the "impossible argument" is not "a given".

Sure, God may have revealed to other writers at a later date that the devil really was in the garden in the guise of a snake.

Christ said in John 8 that "Abraham saw my day and was glad".

Paul says of Abraham "the Gospel was preached to Abraham" Gal 3:7.

So where in Genesis "do you find that"??

Written in a manner that conveys the literal existence of a snake (plainest simplest, most ordinary meaning) and accepted as such for hundreds of years

You are missing my point apparently. I think the reason that Moses says that Eve saw a snake talking to her from the tree of knowledge of good and evil - - is because that is exactly what she saw.

Just as Moses reports that his staff turned into a snake.

That is exactly what he saw.

He did not "do an autopsy" on the snakes in question - but he described them accurately.

And Moses says that Abraham literally saw 3 men walking toward him in Gen 15 - 2 of them turn out to be angels and 1 turns out to be God - YHWH according to the text.

The T.E. argument only works by keeping a significant distance from the text.

in Christ,

Bob