Denying all evidence

[matthewgar]

Maybe you are not understanding, you can point out errors in the text, yest that is fine, but you also have to substantiate that the text you cite is an accurate representation of their (Hebrew) beliefs. Remember, you have already claimed that the Bible contains errors, could this not be an error also, a change from the original text? That is why you need an outside source to validate the original claim that this text which you have found an error in is an accurate representation of Hebrew beliefs.

Like I said YOU have to prove that the hebrews had some sort of different understanding cosmology and the earth that is some how different from any other cultures at the time, especially when the cosmology portrayed in the bible fits the beleifs of those around them more then a modern understanding.

If your wrong and your arguing they had special knowledge then your not helping people when they can clearly see that the bible's cosmology isn't different from those around them.

 

[rcorlew]

I was simply saying youtube as there are dozen of videos where you have YEC's and some TE's making claims of science in the bible and then people responding to them, so you have a clear these are sciences in the bible and then general responses to them. Isn't proof of anything, just makes it easier to see both sides in 1-2 videos rather then trying to find them scattered across the internet.

And my point isn't that the bible is right or wrong on this subject, but if it's correct you need a better argument then to say that they have a different meaning then what all the cultures in the middle east at the time thought. THe verses in the bible that are used to describe a flat earth or claim it does are worded and phrased in just the exact same way that other cultures at the time of the wrting believed.

And yes the bible can have errors, and in fact does, trying to claim it doesn't have errors is blatnly ignoring many verses like the two geneologies of Jesus, either one of them is wrong, or one of them was supposed to be marry or some other explanation, but doesn't ignore the fact that it's wrong and wrong in the oldest copies we have. So either it's a error one of the writers made or a scribal error, but a error non the less therefore not 100% inerrant.

Trying to claim the bible is inerrant isn't for the benefit of others, but for the beneift of the one believing it's perfect. It won't convince anyone not already convinced of the bible, and harms any attempt to teach and help others come to Christ. Take YEC's, considering the vast amount of evidence they are wrong, all their claims of being right do is convince themselves and protect themselves from losing faith, but doesn't convince anyone that takes the time to look into the evidence. And trying to push the young earth model is just going to drive away people in the church and keep people away from it.

I do not push any form of a YEC issue in church. What I am doing is clearly pointing out a conundrum, proving that a text contains errors solely based upon what that text states. Are there any other archeological evidences stating that the particular texts in the Bible which corroborate a flat earth view are the actual views of the Hebrews. This should be simple, just dig up an engraving or picture painted on a cave wall or a sculpture from around 500 BC, or anytime before Christ for that matter.

Like I said YOU have to prove that the hebrews had some sort of different understanding cosmology and the earth that is some how different from any other cultures at the time, especially when the cosmology portrayed in the bible fits the beleifs of those around them more then a modern understanding.

If your wrong and your arguing they had special knowledge then your not helping people when they can clearly see that the bible's cosmology isn't different from those around them.

I am not trying to prove that they had any kind of special knowledge, I am merely asking for an outside source that the text is an accurate representation of Hebrew beliefs.

 

[matthewgar]

I do not push any form of a YEC issue in church. What I am doing is clearly pointing out a conundrum, proving that a text contains errors solely based upon what that text states. Are there any other archeological evidences stating that the particular texts in the Bible which corroborate a flat earth view are the actual views of the Hebrews. This should be simple, just dig up an engraving or picture painted on a cave wall or a sculpture from around 500 BC, or anytime before Christ for that matter.



I am not trying to prove that they had any kind of special knowledge, I am merely asking for an outside source that the text is an accurate representation of Hebrew beliefs.

This looks like a interesting read on the subject.

A COMMON COSMOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT WORLD

 

[Jase]

I do not push any form of a YEC issue in church. What I am doing is clearly pointing out a conundrum, proving that a text contains errors solely based upon what that text states. Are there any other archeological evidences stating that the particular texts in the Bible which corroborate a flat earth view are the actual views of the Hebrews. This should be simple, just dig up an engraving or picture painted on a cave wall or a sculpture from around 500 BC, or anytime before Christ for that matter.

All mesopotamian views on cosmology were similar. Here is a tablet from the British Museum depicting the Babylonian view of the Earth, which indicated it was flat.

History of Constellation and Star Names

You can research any civilization the existed during those days from the Epic of Gilgamesh, to Sumerian writings, to Egyptian pyramids. They all depict the same basic view of the world as the literal Genesis account.

 

[rcorlew]

This looks like a interesting read on the subject.

A COMMON COSMOLOGY OF THE ANCIENT WORLD

I appreciate a small bit of leg work, but that does not meet the requirement of outside source. It is a bunch of commentary on the Bible and Torah with odd footnotes throughout it. I am not making any claim about whether or not the Hebrew view was in agreement with other cultures, I am merely asking for a source outside of Biblical texts (which includes the Torah as this makes up most of the OT).

If you cannot see the importance of this question I will explain. The claim had been made that the Bible contained errors, not just errors in understanding the physical world, but copy errors as well as translation errors. In order to validate that the text is an accurate representation of Hebrew belief and not a copy error, scribal rewriting, or translation error; there must be a source outside of the Biblical texts in order to verify the text was a representation accurate in its portrayal of the Hebrew beliefs.

The bigger question is not whether anything in the Bible is in error, but is why that error is there in the first place.

 

[rcorlew]

All mesopotamian views on cosmology were similar. Here is a tablet from the British Museum depicting the Babylonian view of the Earth, which indicated it was flat.

History of Constellation and Star Names

You can research any civilization the existed during those days from the Epic of Gilgamesh, to Sumerian writings, to Egyptian pyramids. They all depict the same basic view of the world as the literal Genesis account.

I am not concerned with other creation accounts, I have become familiar enough with them.

Perhaps you do not understand the problem you are faced with here. You have made the argument that the Bible contains errors in fact, translation, and copyist errors, I have agreed with you. Now in order to show that this portion of the Bible is in factual error, you must show that it is not in textual error. You must provide evidence outside of the Bible to show textually that this portion is accurate, maybe a portion of Dead Sea Scrolls, a clay tablet from the Hebrews, maybe even a Sumerian carving depicting the Hebrew's beliefs. This is a form of debate in which I do not disagree with your overall position in order to defeat another position, this in turn will force your opponent to choose one point or the other to affirm, you simply cannot claim that the Bible is in factual error and in textual error without substantiation. Without showing from an outside source that the Bible (at least in this part) is not in textual error you have lost point because you cannot affirm its factual errors as these can be attributed to rewrites, translation errors or copy errors.

 

[Assyrian]

I can deny certain claims because of my faith in Christ. This is what Christ said:

John 5: 46If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.47But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?

And this is what Moses wrote:

Genesis 1. Six evenings and mornings and a seventh day of rest.

This is an origins-related topic in a Christian-only forum, and this is the word of Christ, telling us that the earth was created in six days with a seventh day of rest.

Notice how Jesus didn't say you should believe what Moses said about a literal six day creation? What Jesus said was Moses was talking about him, and they should see that if they understood Moses. Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

So lets just look at how the early Christians understood Moses description of creation and seventh day rest to refer to Jesus Col 2:16 Therefore let no one pass judgement on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. The seventh day rest is a picture of the promised eternal rest we have in Christ through the cross, that is ours through faith not by works. We find the same reading of the seventh day as a picture of Christ and the rest we have in him by faith in Hebrew 3&4. This is a pretty figurative reading of the creation account, yet it seem to be how Jesus is recommending when he said "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me."

 

[Sam Conley]

I have found the best defense against anything potentialy negative is to not alter yourself, but let time alter them. Our greatest enemy is our mind, it wants to understand what it hears regardless of the consciousness and it will push for that. Finding something you cant explain is only a matter of time, once you cant explain it you start to look beyond that normal realm of safety you held onto untill then. We do this in hopes to understand the misconception, but it leads you to asking the question "where did it come from?".

As far as being a teacher I think this all moves too fast for some children to connect with consciously to memory, time will mature their ability to take things in but mostly they are just trying to learn to control themselves let alone learn everything else. It probably wouldnt of helped in my case since I have what seems to be selective ADHD HAHA because once im onto something I enjoy, you have to then distract me from that for a hope of my attention. Luckily Ive grown into my disabilities and can use that constant spinning in my head as a multi thought tool. Id say multi-task but it really only works effectively for thought since im not involving body movements ontop of it. At any rate I found this topic very interesting (in the original post) and equaly so at the end. In ending this post I'd like to say I have noticed Gods greatest weapon is innevitabiliy, if all paths lead to home you will have no choice but to walk it in the light. Otherwise your just walkin around a ball blind from darkness (or lack of light).

 

[Hentenza]

It honestly baffles me how Christians can absolutely deny every single shred of evidence in existence in order to support the infallibility of the Bible. We are discussing in Apologetics whether the Bible is inerrant, and we have gotten to the issue of Hebrew Cosmology.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7491350/

Hentenza has beyond all conceivable imagination made himself believe the Bible is 100% infallible, and that the Flat Earth, Geocentric model of the ancient Hebrews never existed. That they knew before the Greeks even posed the idea that the Earth was spherical and heliocentric.

Despite showing pictures, links, evidence, etc. to the contrary.

How should we deal with this people who obviously do not value education in the slightest?

LOL!!! So you go talking behind my back without even as much as an invite to this thread.

Tell me Jase, how do you know about Jesus Christ?

 

[Hentenza]

Maybe you are not understanding, you can point out errors in the text, yest that is fine, but you also have to substantiate that the text you cite is an accurate representation of their (Hebrew) beliefs. Remember, you have already claimed that the Bible contains errors, could this not be an error also, a change from the original text? That is why you need an outside source to validate the original claim that this text which you have found an error in is an accurate representation of Hebrew beliefs.

His position is merely a regurgitation of biased texts that he agrees with. His argument is self defeating and untenable.

 

[max1120]

At the risk of being redundant I am going to post here. First of all anyone with any sense can accept that the universe was not created in six literal days. There is a plethora of evidence to show factually that such is not the case. Secondly the earth is by all accounts billions of years old and the Universe even older. All of these thing can be proven by scientific facts. There is indisputable evidence that the bible has been changed and altered from the beginning. One of the very best and most accepted examples of this is the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark. In the oldest copies ( 2nd Century BCE ) we have those last 12 verses are not present in any of them. Same is true of copies from the 2nd and 3rd century. Suddenly in the late 3rd early 4th century they pop up in the Gospel of Mark. They were clearly added by intent by someone (there are various theories about who and why) and they remained since. We do not even posses any of the original copies of the books which make up the bible (old or new testament). There are a number of places where the bible contradicts itself and bible even states that it can be add and subtract from by men (Revelations).
The church fathers argued for centuries before they finally came up with an accepted list of books to include in the bible in 392 AD (almost 400 years after Christ death). Even some were only accepted ( Hebrews and Revelations) after a political compromise between the Western and Eastern Church. Taking the bible "literally" is not a good idea. Doing so would do more harm than good. The bible make great use of and is written in metaphor, allegory, hyperbole, and parables. Much of what is written is intended to be figurative and not literal.

 

[Hentenza]

At the risk of being redundant I am going to post here. First of all anyone with any sense can accept that the universe was not created in six literal days. There is a plethora of evidence to show factually that such is not the case. Secondly the earth is by all accounts billions of years old and the Universe even older. All of these thing can be proven by scientific facts. There is indisputable evidence that the bible has been changed and altered from the beginning. One of the very best and most accepted examples of this is the last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark. In the oldest copies ( 2nd Century BCE ) we have those last 12 verses are not present in any of them. Same is true of copies from the 2nd and 3rd century. Suddenly in the late 3rd early 4th century they pop up in the Gospel of Mark. They were clearly added by intent by someone (there are various theories about who and why) and they remained since. We do not even posses any of the original copies of the books which make up the bible (old or new testament). There are a number of places where the bible contradicts itself and bible even states that it can be add and subtract from by men (Revelations).
The church fathers argued for centuries before they finally came up with an accepted list of books to include in the bible in 392 AD (almost 400 years after Christ death). Even some were only accepted ( Hebrews and Revelations) after a political compromise between the Western and Eastern Church. Taking the bible "literally" is not a good idea. Doing so would do more harm than good. The bible make great use of and is written in metaphor, allegory, hyperbole, and parables. Much of what is written is intended to be figurative and not literal.

I'll ask you the same question that I asked Jase. How do you know about Jesus Christ?

 

[Jase]

LOL!!! So you go talking behind my back without even as much as an invite to this thread.

Tell me Jase, how do you know about Jesus Christ?

Rational discourse is impossible with anyone who believes the kind of myths you do, so I don't really have any reason to discuss this further with you. Hence no invite.

 

[Hentenza]

Rational discourse is impossible with anyone who believes the kind of myths you do, so I don't really have any reason to discuss this further with you. Hence no invite.

So instead you open up a call out thread mentioning me by name to discuss how wrong my theology is according to you without giving me the benefit of defending myself? Mmm....not a very nice thing to do. I think most will agree. Well, maybe you won't. lol

Again Jase, how do you know about Jesus? Is a simple question.

 

[Jase]

So instead you open up a call out thread mentioning me by name to discuss how wrong my theology is according to you without giving me the benefit of defending myself? Mmm....not a very nice thing to do. I think most will agree. Well, maybe you won't. lol

Again Jase, how do you know about Jesus? Is a simple question.

A simple question intended to bate me into the "Why do you believe in Jesus if you don't take the entire Bible literally" trap. No thanks. You don't need to know why I believe as it will serve no purpose.

 

[Hentenza]

A simple question intended to bate me into the "Why do you believe in Jesus if you don't take the entire Bible literally" trap. No thanks. You don't need to know why I believe as it will serve no purpose.

But you claim to follow Jesus by self identifying as a Christian, surely you must have learned about him from somewhere. You see, your arguments are self defeating and untenable. The more you deny scripture the more you deny the very source of the knowledge of the one you call your Lord and Savior. Is a slipper slope you are on Jase.

 

[7steps]

So it seems like people have a problem with scripture being tampered with. Yes it has. That is obvious. Luckily God covered that with redundancy. For those searching Gods message you will get it. Original authorship is infallible but years of human tampering (scribal and interpretative) have created errors. Whether the Hebrews knew that the earth was flat or round has no baring on scriptural accuracy. God knows everything and He inspired scripture. I am sure that God had them write things down that they did not completely understand but God had a purpose for it. Scripture is not meant to be historical or scientific. Scripture is about an instruction manual, to show us the way back to God. It is about showing us the trustworthiness and reliability of God. It is about relationship. Is it accurate it its account of creation I believe so. I think scripture is very literal and also metaphoric. I think the problem is with our understanding. The more I study scripture the more accurate I find it.

 

[rcorlew]

So it seems like people have a problem with scripture being tampered with. Yes it has. That is obvious. Luckily God covered that with redundancy. For those searching Gods message you will get it. Original authorship is infallible but years of human tampering (scribal and interpretative) have created errors. Whether the Hebrews knew that the earth was flat or round has no baring on scriptural accuracy. God knows everything and He inspired scripture. I am sure that God had them write things down that they did not completely understand but God had a purpose for it. Scripture is not meant to be historical or scientific. Scripture is about an instruction manual, to show us the way back to God. It is about showing us the trustworthiness and reliability of God. It is about relationship. Is it accurate it its account of creation I believe so. I think scripture is very literal and also metaphoric. I think the problem is with our understanding. The more I study scripture the more accurate I find it.

Well, I think that you have accurately nailed my personal view on this matter, it describes the condition of what we call life more accurately than any other work. It is infallible in purpose, intent, message, and accurate portrayal of all of those. Sure there are some transcript errors, rewrites, overwrites and additions here and there, a good example is the early attempt at early apologetics found in the addition of Genesis chapter 1 which was a direct refutation of the Babylonian creation story.

The problem with this particular thread is that a claim has been made that the Bible is in error both textually and factually, these are dependent claims and cannot both exist at the same time. The Bible can contain factual errors which you can find by reading the book, however if you find textual errors you cannot assume that the factual errors are textually correct as they can be the result of textual errors. This is exactly like the OJ Simpson murder trial, the biggest piece of evidence in the case revolved around the leather glove found at the scene, however after collecting and analyzing the glove they found that there was evidence of tampering or mishandling with the glove, the glove then became tainted evidence and was not allowed as evidence in the manner they sought (DNA analysis). The end result was that the tainted evidence basically caused the jury to rule in favor of OJ Simpson since the biggest piece of evidence could not be trusted to be an accurate representation of the object found at the scene of the crime.

 

[Jase]

But you claim to follow Jesus by self identifying as a Christian, surely you must have learned about him from somewhere. You see, your arguments are self defeating and untenable. The more you deny scripture the more you deny the very source of the knowledge of the one you call your Lord and Savior. Is a slipper slope you are on Jase.

The fact that you think God is incapable of revealing himself to people without worshipping a pile of paper is disturbing to say the least. The amount of Bibliolatry on this board absolutely disgusts me. And slippery slope or not, obviously God should have done a better job making the Bible perfectly accurate and explaining every single piece of knowledge that would ever be conceptualized if that was his intention (which I know it wasn't). It's not my fault the entire Universe - every single piece of physical matter in existence - contradicts a literal reading of the Bible. Take it up with God not me.

 

[Hentenza]

The fact that you think God is incapable of revealing himself to people without worshipping a pile of paper is disturbing to say the least. The amount of Bibliolatry on this board absolutely disgusts me. And slippery slope or not, obviously God should have done a better job making the Bible perfectly accurate and explaining every single piece of knowledge that would ever be conceptualized if that was his intention (which I know it wasn't). It's not my fault the entire Universe - every single piece of physical matter in existence - contradicts a literal reading of the Bible. Take it up with God not me.

So, how do you know about Jesus, Jase? You can call me names and keep throwing ad homs my way but it does not change the fact of where you got your knowledge of the one that you call your Lord and Savior.