Great Study of Genesis

Cabal said:

I guess I'm not so much concerned about the actual veracity of the Bible rather than this claim that is levelled at its coherency - when it doesn't seem like a supernatural explanation is the sole possible explanation for it.

Click to expand...

Well, knowing how mankind is, I don't think 40 men could that, even if they tried.

Call it 'caterpillar style' or 'grandfathering' or 'daisy chaining' or whatever, somewhere along the line a gross mistake is going to be made.

And, yes, I'm familiar with the god-did-it/satan-did-it argument:

2 Samuel 24:1 ¶ And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

1 Chronicles 21:1 1 ¶ And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

Someone saturated in the Word of God would not make such a glaring error, and his contemporaries, also saturated in the Word of God would catch that.

Tomatoman said:

I'm genuinely baffled as to how anyone can think god wrote the bible.

Click to expand...

Not to mention God, Himself, thinking that!

Vatis said:

The peanut butter argument is funny on so many levels...
personally I think the funniest thing about it is that even if there were new life in the jar, no one would ever know...

Click to expand...

As if there was some microscopic proto-life in the peanut butter he would be able to see it with the naked eye....

AV1611VET said:

Well, knowing how mankind is, I don't think 40 men could that, even if they tried.

Call it 'caterpillar style' or 'grandfathering' or 'daisy chaining' or whatever, somewhere along the line a gross mistake is going to be made.

Click to expand...

Someone saturated in the Word of God would not make such a glaring error, and his contemporaries, also saturated in the Word of God would catch that.

Click to expand...

Isn't the obvious solution here that the Bible (or at least the books where such inconsistencies arise) was written by imperfect men not necessarily inspired and thus not wholly inerrant, or is at least imperfectly pieced together?

Split Rock said:

As if there was some microscopic proto-life in the peanut butter he would be able to see it with the naked eye....

Click to expand...

No kidding.

AV1611VET said:

No kidding.

Click to expand...

That is called Mold. It is not proto-life. It is a highly evolved fungus that has adapted well to consuming carbohydrates like starch.

Split Rock said:

That is called Mold. It is not proto-life. It is a highly evolved fungus that has adapted well to consuming carbohydrates like starch.

Click to expand...

Highly created. It's a highly created fungus

Ar Cosc said:

Highly created. It's a highly created fungus

Click to expand...

shh, you'll give them ideas

Cabal said:

Isn't the obvious solution here that the Bible (or at least the books where such inconsistencies arise) was written by imperfect men and thus not wholly inerrant, or is at least imperfectly pieced together?

Click to expand...

No.

Contrary to mechanical inspiration, or dictation, where a person writes the exact words being dictated, God allowed men to use their own style of writing and word choices -- this is called verbal plenary inspiration.

What appears as a contradiction or error, can be cleared up by understanding the context of the passage, as well as the [human] author's writing style.

AV1611VET said:

No.

Contrary to mechanical inspiration, or dictation, where a person writes the exact words being dictated, God allowed men to use their own style of writing and word choices -- this is called verbal plenary inspiration.

What appears as a contradiction or error, can be cleared up by understanding the context of the passage, as well as the [human] author's writing style.

Click to expand...

But you just said:

AV1611VET said:

2 Samuel 24:1 ¶ And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

1 Chronicles 21:1 1 ¶ And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

Someone saturated in the Word of God would not make such a glaring error, and his contemporaries, also saturated in the Word of God would catch that.

Click to expand...

And yet there it is.

Cabal said:

And yet there it is.

Click to expand...

Note that in both passages, David repented and acknowledged it was a sin:

2 Samuel 24:10 ¶ And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

1 Chronicles 21:8 And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

Notice in the 2 Samuel passage, that David did not say, "You told me to!"

Ok, something else I'm not getting about Missler, from the above video:

If he's so keen to accept an old universe, to the point of using relativity to fit 6000 years to the age given by science, why does he then go and rubbish cosmology, the means by which the date he's fitting to was established in the first place? I don't get why you can claim to be reconciling the conclusions of science with Genesis while disparaging the methods by which the date was obtained.

It's just not even wrong - I mean, what's the point? The conclusions of science stand on the methods by which they were obtained. You can't have one without the other.

AV1611VET said:

Note that in both passages, David repented and acknowledged it was a sin:

2 Samuel 24:10 ¶ And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

1 Chronicles 21:8 And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

Notice in the 2 Samuel passage, that David did not say, "You told me to!"

Click to expand...

I don't see how this outright confirms one reading given that the Bible documents God hardening hearts in order to get a given response. In light of this the passages still seem somewhat contradictory.

Additionally, this doesn't rule out the possibility that David didn't know which agent was influencing him - although that does make one wonder how the writers of 1 Chr and 2 Sam did.

Again, the simplest solution seems to be that someone made a minor fluff either in writing or in compilation.

AV:

God allowed men to use their own style of writing and word choices -- this is called verbal plenary inspiration.

Click to expand...

Why did he do that? God is really asking for trouble by using such a rubbish method. Why did he bother doing it that way?

You'd think if god actually had something useful to tell us he'd make sure it was as clear and precise as possible, and that everyone on earth would know about it. Instread he tosses off a load of pointless local history and mythology to some confused guys in the middle east. Shoves in a healthy does of completely insane mumbo-jumbo and announces, 'wahey, job done. Time to put my feet up'.

It's not very likely is it.

In fact why didn't god just create the bible out of thin air like you claim he created everything else? According the you lot it seems to be his favourite method of creating things, so why not do the same for the bible? It would at least show consistency, and be a hell of a lot easier.

And isn't god bothered that his first book is getting a little out of date by now? Isn't it about time for a sequel? I mean, who on earth is going to wade through that boring load of old tosh when they can get the latest Dan Brown for 9.99 down the supermarket? Isn't it about time god thought about doing a sequel that is a bit more current? A bit more happening? A bit more relevant? Seems to me that god is letting things slide. Perhaps he's busy doing something else. Or perhaps he's just lazy. Or perhaps he had absolutely nothing to do with the bible at all and the whole idea is a load of rubbish.

Cabal said:

Ok, something else I'm not getting about Missler, from the above video:

If he's so keen to accept an old universe, to the point of using relativity to fit 6000 years to the age given by science, why does he then go and rubbish cosmology, the means by which the date he's fitting to was established in the first place? I don't get why you can claim to be reconciling the conclusions of science with Genesis while disparaging the methods by which the date was obtained.

It's just not even wrong - I mean, what's the point? The conclusions of science stand on the methods by which they were obtained. You can't have one without the other.

Click to expand...

If I remember correctly, he goes with Barry Setterfield's calculations concerning the speed of light changing.

Here's his website: Berry Setterfield.

Cabal said:

Again, the simplest solution seems to be that someone made a minor fluff either in writing or in compilation.

Click to expand...

And I'll reiterate as well that a 'minor fluff' -- especially of this magnitude -- would not have gone unnoticed by his contemporaries.

LifeToTheFullest! said:

Why?

Click to expand...

why not?

AV1611VET said:

If I remember correctly, he goes with Barry Setterfield's calculations concerning the speed of light changing.

Here's his website: Berry Setterfield.

Click to expand...

Ok, by the looks of things Barry Setterfield doesn't even understand what zero point energy does. (It is not an energy source.)

Even so, that's not really the point I'm making - these ideas take what science has concluded and do some retrofitting because they disagree with the method because it implies an actual old universe, in contradiction to their interpretations of Scripture.

My point is, the conclusions are really not so significant as to the method used to describe them. It doesn't matter that the universe is determined to 13.7 Gyr, the conclusions are what they are - but is the method used to obtain a conclusion valid? That's the important thing, that's how a conclusion is obtained.

I don't see how you can willingly accept the results and reject the methods. It just doesn't make any logical or rational sense. Why not just go with 6000 years old and a Goddidit if you're going to do that?

AV1611VET said:

And I'll reiterate as well that a 'minor fluff' -- especially of this magnitude -- would not have gone unnoticed by his contemporaries.

Click to expand...

And yet it's there.

Btw, who is supposed to have written these books?