Bible - The Creationist's Evidence...

[Open]

Hi Folks.

I want to throw a different slant on the Creation/evolution debate.

We constantly look at evidence for evolution. There are plenty references. No problem there.

When we look for scientific proof of creationism/references there do not appear to be any peer reviewed and scientifically approved sources.

The resort of the creationist is a literal interpretation of the Bible.

So let’s examine the Bible. Not so much from a bible study perspective. I’m sure we will get as many interpretations as Christians of the forum.
But rather let us look at the origin of the Bible and why creationists think/believe it is accurate.
Ie Where did it come from?
As for the New Testament ,are we happy to trust the Councils of Hippo/Carthage in the choice of books they made.
In light of other gospels such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which shockingly mentions Christ killing in his childhood can we be happy that such other historical references are not accurate.

Why treat the bible in its current format as the word of God. Are Christians not placing their faith in the Councils of Hippo/Carthage. How can we be sure that the recorded gospels are indeed accurate accounts when they were written many years after the event.
It seems to me that for many Christians their faith in is the Bible and not God per se.

This may seem more appropriate for another part of the forum, however I see it as key. Science is being constantly scrutinised, why not the default position of the creationist. Ie The origin of the Bible and a literalist interpretation of same.

Seems if that does not stand up to scrutiny, the arguments from Creationists are based on a fallacy.

I am no expert in this area. I just want to throw the idea out and see what happens………

 

[AintNoMonkey]

In before "Because god said it--- that settles it."

 

[Open]

A little more depth please!!!!!

 

[keith99]

This may seem more appropriate for another part of the forum, however I see it as key. Science is being constantly scrutinised, why not the default position of the creationist. Ie The origin of the Bible and a literalist interpretation of same.

I'd like to raise some points on this one. I usually call it uberliteralist. It seems they make the jump that we should read the Bible with comic book literalism and also assume it is exhaustive. If I were to say the sun rises in the East and sets the West would anyone think I was claiming the sun actually circles the Earth? Or that these are due East and Due West? Would anyone think I'm making either of those claims? Or would they instead think I was saying that of the 4 compass points the sun is pretty much East when it is first visible during the day and West when last seen?

So why view Scripture differently? I've heard many preachers say Scripture tells us how to interperate Scripture. So where does it even give a hint that it should be read (in translated form no less) in this comic book uberliteral way?

 

[Open]

Indeed. Lets look at the flat earth bible interpretations that prevailed for so long.
Why try to point the ‘circle of the earth’ verse to prove that the bible meant that the earth was round. I understand that ancient Hebrew pictures show the earth as a flat and circular as opposed to spherical. Its seems to be a case of hindsight being a great teacher? Surely some parts of the bible should be taken as metaphors. Are not some verses a visual interpretation of the world was from the perspective of people who observed the world as it appeared to them, without the benefit of modern understanding?
Also, why take the Genises creation stories taken so literally ?

 

[Open]

Apologies. The above post digresses too much. I wish to concentrate on the historical context of Biblical writings in this thread.
ie the accuracy and veracity of same.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I'd like to raise some points on this one. I usually call it uberliteralist. It seems they make the jump that we should read the Bible with comic book literalism and also assume it is exhaustive. If I were to say the sun rises in the East and sets the West would anyone think I was claiming the sun actually circles the Earth? Or that these are due East and Due West? Would anyone think I'm making either of those claims? Or would they instead think I was saying that of the 4 compass points the sun is pretty much East when it is first visible during the day and West when last seen?

So why view Scripture differently? I've heard many preachers say Scripture tells us how to interperate Scripture. So where does it even give a hint that it should be read (in translated form no less) in this comic book uberliteral way?

Or better yet, how do we know to interpret the scripture which tells us to interpret the scripture?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why treat the bible in its current format as the word of God.

Because It is the Word of God.

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

If not the 1611 King James Version, then what? No other version has a history like this version - none. It has a paper trail of accuracy that , in English, leads back to the AV700 Wycliffe Version.

God promised to preserve His Word ---

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

--- and this paper trail, starting with the AV1611 version and going backwards, leads all the way back.

 

[Tomk80]

Apologies. The above post digresses too much. I wish to concentrate on the historical context of Biblical writings in this thread.
ie the accuracy and veracity of same.

What do you mean with looking at this? When you mean looking at the origins of bible stories, do you mean looking at statements like those of the Israeli Archeological Society that say there is no evidence for any of the large Jewish kingdoms mentioned in the bible. And no evidence that the Jewish people ever came out of Egypt. That, to say it in other words, the stories in the bible were largely made up from beginning to end.

Because you know that those points are ignored by biblical literalists just as everything else in reality.

 

[Tomk80]

See AV1611VET for a case in point.

 

[Open]

Forgive me but I only have an NIV to hand.

Most (but not all) scholars agree that Paul wrote this second letter which has been dated approx 80 to 100AD.

It reads a little different in NIV. It refers to being called (past tense) through the Gospel. It does not state whether this was in written form and if so which of many gospels in circulation at the time.

Anyhooo, The Biblical Gospels are from my limited sources dated:

Matthew 80 to 100 AD
Mark 65 to 80AD
Luke 80 to 130AD
And
John 80 to 120AD.

There was not to our knowledge any formal written ‘word of God’ at that time (except OT). The word referred to here appears can also refer to be the revelation of the Gospel message as spoken, as opposed to written text, whatever that was at the time.

Neither of the two verses you quote appear to claim the Bible as we know it is the word of God. (If I am misinterpreting you might advise your take on it).

I do not see the relevance of the Psalm quotation (A prayer for help by the writer – Presumably King David). Verse 6 refers to ‘…words of the Lord being flawless and goes on in verse 7 to indicate that the writer and his people will be protected as opposed to the ‘word’. One first of all has to establish that the words to which we refer are indeed the words of God before we can make that jump.

Perhaps it is best we concentrate on the KJV and its origin for now. There is too much room for misinterpretation otherwise.
As for the Wycliffe version, I am following up a History channel documentary addressing this issue amongst others. I would welcome any links you may have re a brief history of the KJV. (I have a full time job etc so I cannot deal with copious amounts of material as of now, but of course reserve the right to look for more later).


PS: Tomk80 – I am referring to historical verification of Biblical writings ie documentation. How did we get to 66 books. The contents are also important in that they can verify or otherwise historical facts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Forgive me but I only have an NIV to hand.

Most (but not all) scholars agree that Paul wrote this second letter which has been dated approx 80 to 100AD.

It reads a little different in NIV. It refers to being called (past tense) through the Gospel. It does not state whether this was in written form and if so which of many gospels in circulation at the time.

Anyhooo, The Biblical Gospels are from my limited sources dated:

Matthew 80 to 100 AD
Mark 65 to 80AD
Luke 80 to 130AD
And
John 80 to 120AD.

There was not to our knowledge any formal written ‘word of God’ at that time (except OT). The word referred to here appears can also refer to be the revelation of the Gospel message as spoken, as opposed to written text, whatever that was at the time.

Neither of the two verses you quote appear to claim the Bible as we know it is the word of God. (If I am misinterpreting you might advise your take on it).

I do not see the relevance of the Psalm quotation (A prayer for help by the writer – Presumably King David). Verse 6 refers to ‘…words of the Lord being flawless and goes on in verse 7 to indicate that the writer and his people will be protected as opposed to the ‘word’. One first of all has to establish that the words to which we refer are indeed the words of God before we can make that jump.

Perhaps it is best we concentrate on the KJV and its origin for now. There is too much room for misinterpretation otherwise.
As for the Wycliffe version, I am following up a History channel documentary addressing this issue amongst others. I would welcome any links you may have re a brief history of the KJV. (I have a full time job etc so I cannot deal with copious amounts of material as of now, but of course reserve the right to look for more later).


PS: Tomk80 – I am referring to historical verification of Biblical writings ie documentation. How did we get to 66 books. The contents are also important in that they can verify or otherwise historical facts.

Are you talking to me, or Tom?

 

[Open]

Oops, Sorry! Forgot to say the post was meant for you with the exception of the final paragraph.