Is the Bible reliable?

[elliott95]

If we're looking for perfect harmony and complete reliability in the sense of having no irreducible disagreements then why are there four gospels in the new testament three of which are clearly related and one of which is very different from the others. And why do the three synoptic gospels suggest that Jesus died on the day after the Passover lamb was sacrificed when the feast of unleavened bread had already started (on the day before the crucifixion) while the fourth gospel suggests that Jesus died at approximately the time that the Passover lamb was sacrificed so that the last supper would fall before the feast of unleavened bread had started giving rise to the tradition of using unleavened bread in the celebration of the holy Eucharist? Clearly this is an irreducible difference. So why are there four canonical gospels? There was in fact, in history, in time, one Jesus not four, nor two, so why four gospels when having four leads to at least one (and there are many more than one) irreducible differences in the gospel accounts?

These are not small, trivial matters, but even if they were, this is the kind of thing that shows the pitfalls of presuming the Bible to be something magically correct, instead of something holy.
We see in the four gospels four very different points of view, and theology taking precedent over historical fidelity. We in fact see this all the time in the Bible, with different books echoing different themes. We see it in Matthew's adherence to every jot and iota of the law as opposed to the way that Paul speaks of the lawas something pretty much redundant.
And these are often the topics of bitter debate in Christian discussions too, with all sides being able to make a valid Biblical case.
For example, there is the theme in recent discussions of Moses' body being buried versus another theme from the Gospels and the book of Jude, which in turn takes information from the apocryphal Book of the Ascension of Moses in which the body of Moses is not buried as the OT suggests, but is ascended to heaven, and ergo able to appear in bodily format in the Transfiguration of the Lord. Of course there are ways to square those circles to make all the pegs fit nearly.
It is worth noting however that this is not what the early Christians did when the very same issues of discrepancy came up in the early centuries of the church. Instead, in an argument against creating a unitary super gospel from the four, what was decided upon was that the four gospels were like the four winds blowing from the four corners of the world, like the four evangelists, and together they formed a more perfect truth.
We do not get reliable history therefore, but conscious decision that instead of a arbitrary history, the fate of the Bible is decided by poetry.
This is not a refutation of the value of the bible either, but instead appreciating the reliability of the Bible for what it really is, rather than what it cannot be shaped into without the one who shapes losing any semblance of integrity.

 

[WindStaff]

Why would anyone think that the ones who put the canon together simply ignored these so called contradictions? This would be something to be wary of- in fact, they have a great deal of apocrypha which shows how much they scrutinized these scriptures to make sure the canon was legitimate.

It makes a far deal more sense that people simply assume too much about what the apostles were doing and how they came to their conclusions-

-then that the New Testament so openly and plainly contradicts itself.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

the schedule is found accurate, in line with Torah, Scripture, the Feasts, Yhvh's Plan, and Hebrew Life and Customs,
only on Jewish Sites. none of the goyim calendars even get close (unless , abiding in Yahushua, grafted in).
look it up, and keep looking. (english for "seek and keep on seeking" as Yahushua said.)

 

[BobRyan]

For example, there is the theme in recent discussions of Moses' body being buried versus another theme from the Gospels and the book of Jude, which in turn takes information from the apocryphal Book of the Ascension of Moses in which the body of Moses is not buried as the OT suggests, but is ascended to heaven, and ergo able to appear in bodily format in the Transfiguration of the Lord. Of course there are ways to square those circles to make all the pegs fit nearly. .

One person sees you at Walmart... someone else sees you at Krogers a few weeks later... so which is it!!!??? Are you at Walmart or Krogers!!??

You can't be both places at once.

The book - the "Assumption of Moses" is note about Moses not dying or not being buried - it is about Moses being bodily resurrected and taken to heaven... but when would that have been?

the day he died?

20 years later?

100 years later??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

GOOD NEWS for those who love the TRUTH.

in ethiopia, recently, the people of the book who for centuries thought they were the last remaining people of the book on earth.

they rejoiced with great joy to find that the bible they had, TORAH, was identical in every jot and tittle, every letter, with the TORAH that the people of the book in israel had, and those around the world.

identical in each and every letter.

oh,

and it had been close to 2000 years since they had been separated and isolated from their brethren.....

Act 4:24 And having heard that, they lifted up their voice to Elohiym with one mind and said, "YHWH You are Elohiym, who made the sky and the land and the sea, and all that is in them,
Act 4:25 who by the mouth of Your servant Dawid have said, 'Why did the gentiles rage, and the people plot in vain?

yhvh certainly watched, watches , over his word to protect it.

the goyim don't have a clue. (mostly)

 

[PeaceBWithU]

So

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

Jesus said the greatest commandments were to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. I do that and think Jesus embodied the attributes of God. I am a Christian. Liberal, yes, but a Christian, nonetheless.

 

[elliott95]

One person sees you at Walmart... someone else sees you at Krogers a few weeks later... so which is it!!!??? Are you at Walmart or Krogers!!??

You can't be both places at once.

The book - the "Assumption of Moses" is note about Moses not dying or not being buried - it is about Moses being bodily resurrected and taken to heaven... but when what that have been?

the day he died?

20 years later?

100 years later??

in Christ,

Bob

To answer that kind of questioning would be to follow one Biblically based tradition over another.
That would be going on a diversion from the theme that MoreCoffee set in his own post that I was following in my own.

It is not the point to take a stand on whether the Crucifixion took place on the Day of Preparation or the Passover. It is not the point to choose Moses was buried versus resurrected. It is not to make Matthew and Paul to kiss and make up and settle the controversy of the role of the Law in the New Covenant once and for all. It is not the point to square all the circles and circle all the squares to make discrepancies, either real or apparent, fit neatly together.

It is only to note that people noted that these seeming discrepancies existed from a very early date, and rather than chiseling at them in order to make everything conform to the definitive answer, the conscious decision was to not go down that path, but to see the the Four Gospels, the entire Bible even, was perfect without having those kinds of answers provided.

 

[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??

Jesus said the greatest commandments were to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. I do that and think Jesus embodied the attributes of God. I am a Christian. Liberal, yes, but a Christian, nonetheless.

Jesus quoted Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 in the example above - and the religious leaders totally at war with Christ's teaching admitted that this is how the Bible states the matter -- those two are the rock foundation fully supporting all the other commandments.

Mark 7:6-13 -- Jesus endorses all the other commandments and then hammers the Jews for daring to set even one of them (the 5th commandment in that case -- not mentioned in your list) aside.


A Christian who denies the historicity of the virgin birth, the incarnation, the resurrection etc - seems to me to be the same as all the others who deny those Bible miracles.

How can you stand in the position of those opposing Christianity as if that is "just another Christian POV"?

What is the point?

If you are saying you are just a "cultural Christian" but not a doctrinal one - then what christian culture does that? Is there a name for it??

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

For example, there is the theme in recent discussions of Moses' body being buried versus another theme from the Gospels and the book of Jude, which in turn takes information from the apocryphal Book of the Ascension of Moses in which the body of Moses is not buried as the OT suggests, but is ascended to heaven, and ergo able to appear in bodily format in the Transfiguration of the Lord. Of course there are ways to square those circles to make all the pegs fit nearly. .

One person sees you at Walmart... someone else sees you at Krogers a few weeks later... so which is it!!!??? Are you at Walmart or Krogers!!??

You can't be both places at once.

The book - the "Assumption of Moses" is note about Moses not dying or not being buried - it is about Moses being bodily resurrected and taken to heaven... but when would that have been?

the day he died?

20 years later?

100 years later??

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

To answer that kind of questioning would be to follow one Biblically based tradition over another.

No - the answer is a bit more obvious than you have imagined to yourself - as in the case with Walmart one week and Krogers two weeks later.

Everyone admits that Matt 17 is "later" than Deuteronomy.

I was just "stating the obvious".

That would be going on a diversion from the theme that MoreCoffee set in his own post that I was following in my own.

The diversion that MoreCoffee set in his post is easily resolved with the details "in the text" and the fact that Hebrew scholars of all world-class universities admit to the obvious intent and meaning stated by the author of that text fully consistent with "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE..." Ex 20:8-11 summarizing the 7 day week of Gen 1:2-2:3.

Darwin "noticed", Dawkins "noticed", most Christian Hebrew scholars "notice" and apparently so do all Hebrew scholars of all world-class universities according to Dr. James Barr.

It is not the point to take a stand on whether the Crucifixion took place on the Day of Preparation or the Passover.

indeed - I never bring up that smoke screen ... I always bring up "the virgin birth" the incarnation, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the bodily ascension of Christ - the 7 day creation week....

All those things you would wish to call "myths" ...

Of course when you say that the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary, and apostolic succession is just Catholic myth -- I can't help but agree with you on that point -- but I am talking about the miracles of the Bible.

Thus the intent of the author is clear - even to the Hebrew scholars of all world-class universities.

And there is no text in scripture saying "the 7 day week did not happen" as we all know. On the contrary - we have legal code in Ex 20:8-11 affirming "that very DETAIL" -- as we all know.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If we're looking for perfect harmony and complete reliability in the sense of having no irreducible disagreements then why are there four gospels in the new testament three of which are clearly related ...

The "details" in the Gen 1:2-2:3 account for the 7 day literal week are in fact affirmed in the legal code of Ex 20:8-11 not denied by it or contradicted.

"SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE..." Ex 20:8-11.

The very affirmation of the very detail in origins that you preach is most to be distrusted, doubted, rejected, imagined-away.

But as James Barr notes the intended meaning of the author in Genesis is obvious even to the Hebrew scholars of all world-class universities - so also did Darwin, Dawkins and many Christians Hebrew scholars in all ages admit to the intended meaning of the text - regardless of whether they also accept its historicity.

There is no Bible statement "no it did not" as you may have imagined to yourself.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[PeaceBWithU]

What is the point?

If you are saying you are just a "cultural Christian" but not a doctrinal one - then what christian culture does that? Is there a name for it??

in Christ,

Bob

Supernaturalism was for a time when we attributed God to events we didn't understand. Now that we have a better understanding of why things happen, we can have a more accurate view of God. No one has all of the answers, so no one denomination or religion owns God. I follow Christ and believe in God, so I am a Christian. A Christian is a "little Christ." Following Jesus seems a better way to spread love than just worshiping Jesus.

 

[MoreCoffee]

If we're looking for perfect harmony and complete reliability in the sense of having no irreducible disagreements then why are there four gospels in the new testament three of which are clearly related and one of which is very different from the others. And why do the three synoptic gospels suggest that Jesus died on the day after the Passover lamb was sacrificed when the feast of unleavened bread had already started (on the day before the crucifixion) while the fourth gospel suggests that Jesus died at approximately the time that the Passover lamb was sacrificed so that the last supper would fall before the feast of unleavened bread had started giving rise to the tradition of using unleavened bread in the celebration of the holy Eucharist? Clearly this is an irreducible difference. So why are there four canonical gospels? There was in fact, in history, in time, one Jesus not four, nor two, so why four gospels when having four leads to at least one (and there are many more than one) irreducible differences in the gospel accounts?

The "details" in the Gen 1:2-2:3 account for the 7 day literal week are in fact affirmed in the legal code of Ex 20:8-11 not denied by it or contradicted....

I was wondering how you got Genesis 1:2-2:3 out of my post but when I noticed that you'd ignored the part shown in bold text the answer was obvious; you didn't get it from my post. I've truncated your post because it is about something that has nothing whatsoever to do with the post to which you replied.

The views of James Barr (that you canvassed in your post) are quite reasonable but they do not seem to answer the question I raised; specifically, why are there four stories about Christ's earthly ministry one according to Mark, another according to Matthew, a their according to Luke each closely related with very obvious similarities and then a fourth story according to John that is very different indeed?

 

[BobRyan]

Supernaturalism was for a time when we attributed God to events we didn't understand. Now that we have a better understanding of why things happen, we can have a more accurate view of God. No one has all of the answers, so no one denomination or religion owns God. I follow Christ and believe in God, so I am a Christian. A Christian is a "little Christ." Following Jesus seems a better way to spread love than just worshiping Jesus.

So then you do admit - along with the Hebrew scholars of all world-class universities that Moses was not intending to convey your meaning for origins but rather the supposedly "less informed" meaning that would be acceptable in his backward thinking?

Do we now have a "better understanding" of the 7 day creation week, incarnation, the virgin birth, the resurrection and ascension of Christ -- because we are so practiced at observing/video-taping/reproducing such events???

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If we're looking for perfect harmony and complete reliability in the sense of having no irreducible disagreements then why are there four gospels in the new testament three of which are clearly related ...

The "details" in the Gen 1:2-2:3 account for the 7 day literal week are in fact affirmed in the legal code of Ex 20:8-11 not denied by it or contradicted.

"SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE..." Ex 20:8-11.

The very affirmation of the very detail in origins that you preach is most to be distrusted, doubted, rejected, imagined-away.

But as James Barr notes the intended meaning of the author in Genesis is obvious even to the Hebrew scholars of all world-class universities - so also did Darwin, Dawkins and many Christians Hebrew scholars in all ages admit to the intended meaning of the text - regardless of whether they also accept its historicity.

There is no Bible statement "no it did not" as you may have imagined to yourself.

hint: My obvious effort to keep the thread on the track set by the OP.

I was wondering how you got Genesis 1:2-2:3 out of my post

I merely assumed your post was in your mind -- in some way -- connected to the OP and focus of the thread.

"Otherwise" it would appear that you were trying to derail the thread with the implied argument "first solve all the actual cases of apparent contradiction before we allow ourselves to think about a case that is soo incredibly obvious that all Hebrew professors in all world-class universities admit to the intended meaning of the author".

I think we all could see that point.

The views of James Barr (that you canvassed in your post) are quite reasonable but they do not seem to answer the question I raised;

Indeed they do address it as pertains to the OP and focus of this thread because they show that by contrast to your examples of supposed contradiction - this 7 day week is a case were there is agreement among Hebrew scholars at all world-class universities on the intended meaning of the text as given by the author.

You are simply urging that we fallow a rabbit-trail "instead" of observing that in the case under review - we have no such contradictions.

specifically, why are there four stories about Christ's earthly ministry one according to Mark, another according to Matthew, a their according to Luke each closely related

details in the Bible are cumulative - "both and" thus side stepping logical fallacies to the contrary.

My guess is that even you will agree with this obvious point.

Now back to the example case for the thread.

with very obvious similarities and then a fourth story according to John that is very different indeed?

see my previous 3 statements above ... same answer.

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

 

[elliott95]

One person sees you at Walmart... someone else sees you at Krogers a few weeks later... so which is it!!!??? Are you at Walmart or Krogers!!??

You can't be both places at once.

The book - the "Assumption of Moses" is note about Moses not dying or not being buried - it is about Moses being bodily resurrected and taken to heaven... but when would that have been?

the day he died?

20 years later?

100 years later??

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



No - the answer is a bit more obvious than you have imagined to yourself - as in the case with Walmart one week and Krogers two weeks later.

Everyone admits that Matt 17 is "later" than Deuteronomy.

I was just "stating the obvious".

There is no need to state the obvious, because it is obvious.

The diversion that MoreCoffee set in his post is easily resolved with the details "in the text" and the fact that Hebrew scholars of all world-class universities admit to the obvious intent and meaning stated by the author of that text fully consistent with "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE..." Ex 20:8-11 summarizing the 7 day week of Gen 1:2-2:3.

What is not obvious is how that is in any way addressing what we had been talking about. You are interjecting your own non-related agenda into this. and not dealing with the argument at all.
That kind of behavior has been obvious for quite some time now.

Darwin "noticed", Dawkins "noticed", most Christian Hebrew scholars "notice" and apparently so do all Hebrew scholars of all world-class universities according to Dr. James Barr.

Noticing is something that all people do, yes.

indeed - I never bring up that smoke screen ... I always bring up "the virgin birth" the incarnation, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the bodily ascension of Christ - the 7 day creation week....

All those things you would wish to call "myths" ...

I never called anything a myth. Some people notice things that don't exist.
That is what happens when reality testing is not a part of the methodology.

Of course when you say that the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary, and apostolic succession is just Catholic myth -- I can't help but agree with you on that point -- but I am talking about the miracles of the Bible.

The IC is neither Biblically nor historically supported, but like the Ascention of Moses is a product of the popular culture.Ditto the Assumption of Mary.
You are noticing things that do not exist again.

Thus the intent of the author is clear - even to the Hebrew scholars of all world-class universities.

That would be something if all the scholars of a field at all the good universities agreed with anything at all in their field.

And there is no text in scripture saying "the 7 day week did not happen" as we all know. On the contrary - we have legal code in Ex 20:8-11 affirming "that very DETAIL" -- as we all know.

Everybody knows your position on that.
Everybody has already dealt with why they do not hold to that.
I don't know that you have noticed the myriad reasons that people have disagreed with that. A lot of what is being noticed has not existed in what has actually been discussed, and a lot of what has been discussed has gone unnoticed, or at least unanswered.

 

[BobRyan]

For example, there is the theme in recent discussions of Moses' body being buried versus another theme from the Gospels and the book of Jude, which in turn takes information from the apocryphal Book of the Ascension of Moses in which the body of Moses is not buried as the OT suggests, but is ascended to heaven, and ergo able to appear in bodily format in the Transfiguration of the Lord. Of course there are ways to square those circles to make all the pegs fit nearly. .

One person sees you at Walmart... someone else sees you at Krogers a few weeks later... so which is it!!!??? Are you at Walmart or Krogers!!??

You can't be both places at once.

The book - the "Assumption of Moses" is note about Moses not dying or not being buried - it is about Moses being bodily resurrected and taken to heaven... but when would that have been?

the day he died?

20 years later?

100 years later??

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

To answer that kind of questioning would be to follow one Biblically based tradition over another.

No - the answer is a bit more obvious than you have imagined to yourself - as in the case with Walmart one week and Krogers two weeks later.

Everyone admits that Matt 17 is "later" than Deuteronomy.

I was just "stating the obvious".

That would be going on a diversion from the theme that MoreCoffee set in his own post that I was following in my own.

The diversion that MoreCoffee set in his post is easily resolved with the details "in the text" and the fact that Hebrew scholars of all world-class universities admit to the obvious intent and meaning stated by the author of that text fully consistent with "SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE..." Ex 20:8-11 summarizing the 7 day week of Gen 1:2-2:3.

Darwin "noticed", Dawkins "noticed", most Christian Hebrew scholars "notice" and apparently so do all Hebrew scholars of all world-class universities according to Dr. James Barr.

It is not the point to take a stand on whether the Crucifixion took place on the Day of Preparation or the Passover.

indeed - I never bring up that smoke screen ... I always bring up "the virgin birth" the incarnation, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the bodily ascension of Christ - the 7 day creation week....

All those things you would wish to call "myths" ...

Of course when you say that the immaculate conception and the assumption of Mary, and apostolic succession is just Catholic myth -- I can't help but agree with you on that point -- but I am talking about the miracles of the Bible.

Thus the intent of the author is clear - even to the Hebrew scholars of all world-class universities.

And there is no text in scripture saying "the 7 day week did not happen" as we all know. On the contrary - we have legal code in Ex 20:8-11 affirming "that very DETAIL" -- as we all know.

There is no need to state the obvious, because it is obvious.

I am relieved to see you post that. Dr James Barr also admits that the intended meaning of the author in Gen 1-11 is very clearly to give a literal historic account "based on the kind of writing" and a few other details.

And he argues noticing this obvious detail in the "kind of literature that it is" is also noticed in the case of Hebrew scholars in all world-class universities.

What is not obvious is how that is in any way addressing what we had been talking about.

It is unclear to me that the subject of this thread and the example given in the OP are so disconnected from what you would prefer to talk about.

You are interjecting your own non-related agenda into this. and not dealing with the argument at all.

Are we still talking about "this thread" and the OP??

Did the subject get derailed?

If you are instead asking why the Bible uses the "both-and" model instead of "either-or fallacy" I posted that in a recent response to MC for the Gospel accounts.

I never called anything a myth. Some people notice things that don't exist.

Assuming we are still talking about this thread and the OP - are you talking about trees? birds? fish? people? our atmosphere?

or the 7 day week in Gen 1-2?

The IC is neither Biblically nor historically supported

Certainly it is a myth that comes from some other source.

, but like the Ascention of Moses is a product of the popular culture.Ditto the Assumption of Mary.
You are noticing things that do not exist again.

I am not arguing that the Immaculate conception, or the assumption of Mary, or the resurrection of Mary "exists", I argue that I am perfectly happy with the Catholic view that these are all myths.

I am arguing that Barr's statement on "the intent" of the author on the 7 day creation week is confirmed in Gen 1-2 and also here

"SIX DAYS you shall labor...for in SIX DAYS the Lord MADE..." Ex 20:8-11

Everybody knows your position on that.
Everybody has already dealt with why they do not hold to that.

Almost all who do not believe the Bible in that regard have admitted that they are doing it in service to an outside agenda - not because of what they find in the actual text itself.

I don't mind admitting that fact as it has been displayed on this thread so far..

Attempts to derail or divert the subject of the thread have happened a few times - I will grant you that. But each time I try to get the thread back on the subject of the test case given in the OP.

However when it was first raised a few posters wanted to argue that the Bible was not written as an account of history because "of the kind of literature that it is" - only to be debunked by pretty much all Hebrew professors in all world-class universities when it comes to Gen 1-11.

And "since then" very little of the "because of the kind of literature that it is" argument remains - as an argument against the 7 day timeline in the text.



in Christ,

Bob

 

[elliott95]

Did the subject get derailed?

Yes.
That is why it has been moved from GT to here.

People wanted to make it about Darwin, rather than the reliability of the bible.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Not sure if they would.

In other words, this is your opinion.

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 not seen anything in this entire thread that says that the Genesis accounts aren't historical.
It's, again, your opinion that this is what's being said.

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.

I have not argued against a 7 day timeline. FYI.

in Christ,

Bob

In Michael, RootofJesse

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

your definition of 'myth' is mythguided.

Neither have I.

Well and good.

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.

Your idea that I'm struggling is...your opinion. Which, we've seen, is often incorrect.

Some agnostics might agree with you on that point.

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

How could he be God and Michael the Archangel?

"Objective Bible Student", there's an oxymoron.
Without context, you cannot know what the Bible means by what it says...

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

Actually, he didn't. "He could not answer the strongest argument against it, which had been made nearly two thousand years earlier by Aristotle: If heliocentrism were true, then there would be observable parallax shifts in the stars’ positions as the earth moved in its orbit around the sun. However, given the technology of Galileo’s time, no such shifts in their positions could be observed. It would require more sensitive measuring equipment than was available in Galileo’s day to document the existence of these shifts, given the stars’ great distance. Until then, the available evidence suggested that the stars were fixed in their positions relative to the earth, and, thus, that the earth and the stars were not moving in space—only the sun, moon, and planets were.

Thus Galileo did not prove the theory by the Aristotelian standards of science in his day. In his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina and other documents, Galileo claimed that the Copernican theory had the "sensible demonstrations" needed according to Aristotelian science, but most knew that such demonstrations were not yet forthcoming. Most astronomers in that day were not convinced of the great distance of the stars that the Copernican theory required to account for the absence of observable parallax shifts. This is one of the main reasons why the respected astronomer Tycho Brahe refused to adopt Copernicus fully.

Galileo could have safely proposed heliocentricity as a theory or a method to more simply account for the planets’ motions. His problem arose when he stopped proposing it as a scientific theory and began proclaiming it as truth, though there was no conclusive proof of it at the time. Even so, Galileo would not have been in so much trouble if he had chosen to stay within the realm of science and out of the realm of theology. But, despite his friends’ warnings, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.

In 1614, Galileo felt compelled to answer the charge that this "new science" was contrary to certain Scripture passages. His opponents pointed to Bible passages with statements like, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed . . ." (Josh. 10:13). This is not an isolated occurrence. Psalms 93 and 104 and Ecclesiastes 1:5 also speak of celestial motion and terrestrial stability. A literalistic reading of these passages would have to be abandoned if the heliocentric theory were adopted. Yet this should not have posed a problem. As Augustine put it, "One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians." Following Augustine’s example, Galileo urged caution in not interpreting these biblical statements too literally.

Unfortunately, throughout Church history there have been those who insist on reading the Bible in a more literal sense than it was intended. They fail to appreciate, for example, instances in which Scripture uses what is called "phenomenological" language—that is, the language of appearances. Just as we today speak of the sun rising and setting to cause day and night, rather than the earth turning, so did the ancients. From an earthbound perspective, the sun does appear to rise and appear to set, and the earth appears to be immobile. When we describe these things according to their appearances, we are using phenomenological language.

The phenomenological language concerning the motion of the heavens and the non-motion of the earth is obvious to us today, but was less so in previous centuries. Scripture scholars of the past were willing to consider whether particular statements were to be taken literally or phenomenologically, but they did not like being told by a non-Scripture scholar, such as Galileo, that the words of the sacred page must be taken in a particular sense."
Sales Newsletter

Bob probably takes these passages literally.