Errors in the Bible

[Skaloop]

How do Christians (specifically, Biblical literalists) reconcile their belief in the Bible as absolute truth when many aspects of the Bible have been proven to be wrong?

People who believe in a literal six-day creation occuring 6000 years ago must reconcile that information with the facts of Earth being billions of years old. Some have backed away from a literal six-day creation and suggest that "days" refers to larger periods of time, such as eons or epochs. But for those who still hold the Earth to be young, what makes you deny scientific fact?

People who believe in the worldwide flood story of Noah must reconcile this belief with the discovery of areas that show no evidence of water for the past 2 million years, as well as with the lack of any other evidence of a worldwide flood.

Those are the big ones, the big stories. But there are others. In Genesis 30:37-43, it talks about Jacob affecting the colouration of goat offspring by forcing the parent goats to look at sticks of varying colouration. Again, this process is not supported by any known facts and has been entirely disproved through genetics. So, is this story a factual historical account, or a mere fable?

In short, some portions of the Bible are not supported by the facts. Other portions of the Bible are outright contradicted by the facts. So, how much of the Bible is true? Is there any evidence that the Bible is true? I've heard about prophecies made in the Bible; what are those prophecies, and have they been shown to have come true?

**Just to get this out of the way now, saying that the proof that the Bible is true is "because the Bible says it is true" is not a sustainable answer.

 

[MethodMan]

How do Christians (specifically, Biblical literalists) reconcile their belief in the Bible as absolute truth when many aspects of the Bible have been proven to be wrong?

Such as?

People who believe in a literal six-day creation occuring 6000 years ago must reconcile that information with the facts of Earth being billions of years old. Some have backed away from a literal six-day creation and suggest that "days" refers to larger periods of time, such as eons or epochs. But for those who still hold the Earth to be young, what makes you deny scientific fact?

Fact or conclusion that has passed peer review?

People who believe in the worldwide flood story of Noah must reconcile this belief with the discovery of areas that show no evidence of water for the past 2 million years, as well as with the lack of any other evidence of a worldwide flood.

Same question.

Those are the big ones, the big stories. But there are others. In Genesis 30:37-43, it talks about Jacob affecting the colouration of goat offspring by forcing the parent goats to look at sticks of varying colouration. Again, this process is not supported by any known facts and has been entirely disproved through genetics. So, is this story a factual historical account, or a mere fable?

So in your opinion, science has everything figured out? You certainly haven't carefull read this passage.

In short, some portions of the Bible are not supported by the facts. Other portions of the Bible are outright contradicted by the facts. So, how much of the Bible is true?

All of it.

Is there any evidence that the Bible is true?

Can you claim anything false and prove it?

I've heard about prophecies made in the Bible; what are those prophecies, and have they been shown to have come true?

**Just to get this out of the way now, saying that the proof that the Bible is true is "because the Bible says it is true" is not a sustainable answer.

But declaring it false without proof is no more substantial. Science is about discovery and you haven't discovered the truth of the Bible so it "must be false", is that it?

I teach Senior High Sinday school and had one of my students ask me about science. She was doing well in school in the area of science and had won a state competition. One might think her faith might be a bit more skeptical and yet she was distressed when she had attended a lecture that challenged the existance of God without scientific proof. She was ready to give up on science and asked the class's opinion. A few students said,"follow your heart." A few "stick out the science" and learn more. When she asked me, I said do both. She has a gift in science so why dump it because it present a challenge to you faith. I told her to embrace science for what it can prove - be open to what it discovers and be skeptical of conclusions that have to be reasoned.

Your challenges to the authenticity of the Bible are no more a challenge that hers. You are just looking at it from the opposing side. Willing to accept conclusions (putting your faith) in man and his limited capacity for understanding and you do not realize those limitations. She puts her faith in God.

Let me ask you this, What are Newton's laws of Motion and what do you think of the origins of the universe in that light?

 

[MariaRegina]

[MOD HAT]

This thread has been cleaned up, so please folks remember that only Christians can answer and respond to the questions of the OP.

However, Non-Christians may carefully post fellowship responses as long as they aren't debative.

These fellowship posts by our Non-Christian members can only ask for clarifications, state agreement, or ask a related question.

These posts cannot be an exposition on the Non-Christians personal atheistic or agnostic beliefs as this is a Christian forum.

[/MOD HAT]

 

[MariaRegina]

This thread is now accepting new posts.

 

[LilLamb219]

MethodMan wrote an awesome post.

Along the same lines of what he wrote, why are you so trusting in some of these "scientific findings" when not all have been so accurate? For example, some of the carbon dating had to be redone because they didn't give a correct dating. Hmmm...science is good many times, but not every time. Scripture is true and the only thing wrong is when we try to reason things out instead of just trusting in what God says.

 

[heron]

Science is continually changing. But so are the translation and cultural insights. When I find something that rubs me the wrong way, I check a lexicon for more precise wording, and often find that the translators inserted their own dogma.



Christians are so diverse, that you will find a broad mix of infallible/inerrant/inspiriational believers. I'm not saying that claiming the Bible is only inspirational will seal the gap, but most of us do not base our entire faith on the small, very ancient passage about creation. There's so much more.


Here is a translation of Genesis 1 based on Strong's literal text with Hebrew definitions. Several words choices are given, as some words used the complex implications. You will see "-self" used as we use "himself." Most Bibles will use the term "god," a synonym for "supreme being."

At first, formed Supreme being-self
Sky over earth and star area (and) ground/land
Land existed desolate/wasteland/worthless (and) void,
Darkness/obscurity/misery/wickedness/destruction/sorrow
above the face/before the surging mass of water/main body of water.

Exhaled breath (of) supreme being
relaxed above face (of the) water/juice.
Say/said Supreme being, be lit.
Came to pass illumination

See/saw Supreme being-self, illumination and happiness caused good things

Distinguished/divided supreme being between light & happiness between
Darkness/misery/ignorance/sorrow/wickedness

 

[CorinneLucy]

I really like that literal Hebrew translation. It strikes a chord with me more than the flowery language in the Bible I have at home, for some reason.

Let me ask you this, What are Newton's laws of Motion and what do you think of the origins of the universe in that light?

What do you think of the origins of the universe in this light?

 

[MikeMcK]

[..

 

[Skaloop]

I personally believe that the Bible is inerrant and to be taken literally, but do you believe that it's possible that the stories in the Bible are metaphors, used to illustrate a larger truth?

Actually, that's totally what I believe; that they are all just stories used to teach and advise. Like Aesop's Fables. And I'll admit, they're good stories with good messages (for the most part), and one would do well to take much of the advice given. So I absolutely believe they are stories used to gicve advice on how to live well. ...

 

[MikeMcK]

[..

 

[MariaRegina]

[mod hat]

PLEASE EDIT YOUR POSTS.

Christians are not to engage the non-Christians in a debate by asking them questions as this is considered baiting.

Only non-Christians are to ask the questions.


[/mod hat]

 

[MikeMcK]

[//

 

[MikeMcK]

[...

 

[Calminian]

How do Christians (specifically, Biblical literalists) reconcile their belief in the Bible as absolute truth when many aspects of the Bible have been proven to be wrong?

I would probably be a literalist by your definition, but it’s actually a false category. There are no christians that believe the Bible never uses figurative language. I don’t interpret the Bible literally, but rather exegetically. That is to say I allow the author to communicate whether he’s speaking literally or figuratively. So I’m basically the person you’re looking for, I just want to clear up some misunderstandings about literalism.

People who believe in a literal six-day creation occuring 6000 years ago must reconcile that information with the facts of Earth being billions of years old. Some have backed away from a literal six-day creation and suggest that "days" refers to larger periods of time, such as eons or epochs. But for those who still hold the Earth to be young, what makes you deny scientific fact?

The author of Genesis was definitely conveying a literal six day creation and relatively young earth. So why do I deny scientific fact? Mainly because I understand the philosophical foundations of science. It is based on the assumption of methodological naturalism (MN). It does not prove MN, it merely assumes it. MN is the idea that no supernatural or miraculous processes have taken place in the area being investigated. Miracles cannot be understood by scientific investigation. Science is a wonderful valuable practice but it is limited to the natural realm. It cannot verify, falsify nor even so much as detect a miracle (not even one directly observed). Therefore it is not the proper tool to assess the validity of Genesis which records numerous creative miracles.

People who believe in the worldwide flood story of Noah must reconcile this belief with the discovery of areas that show no evidence of water for the past 2 million years, as well as with the lack of any other evidence of a worldwide flood.

There is actually very good historical evidence of a global flood, but you are specifically speaking of scientific evidence. The problem is the same. The author of Genesis does not describe a natural flood, but rather a supernatural one. God miraculously causes it, sustains it, and ends it. We know the effects of natural floods but not supernatural ones. Therefore science can't help us.

Those are the big ones, the big stories. But there are others. In Genesis 30:37-43, it talks about Jacob affecting the colouration of goat offspring by forcing the parent goats to look at sticks of varying colouration. Again, this process is not supported by any known facts and has been entirely disproved through genetics. So, is this story a factual historical account, or a mere fable?

Again all of these have to do with miraculous intervention by God. You might as well throw the Resurrection of Christ in there. There is no scientific evidence to support this either. We know that men don’t come to life again after 3 days—that is naturally. But the authors of the gospels are very clear this was no natural event.

**Just to get this out of the way now, saying that the proof that the Bible is true is "because the Bible says it is true" is not a sustainable answer.

Nor do I believe this is an acceptable response. But what I don’t think you realize is, you’re doing the same thing. Claiming science disproves the miraculous accounts in the Bible, is circular reasoning. Science begins with the assumption of methodological naturalism. Your conclusion is based on your starting assumption. This is circular reasoning by definition.

Hope that helps. If you have more questions or challenges fire away. If it gets too involved we may have to move the thread to General Apologetics.

 

[heron]

The seven days were defined by light and dark. This is stretching the possibilities, but we should consider that a literal day was not the same length as we see today.

We assume that planetary rotation/revolution/poles, angles and speeds were all the same as they are now. What if the earth were a different density at the time, a different distance from the sun, etc.? What we see as literal is still limited by our presuppositions...calendar days.

Yes, this is squeezing things around to make them fit...but I think we need to explore all the possibilities before we write the passage off.

 

[Key]

How do Christians (specifically, Biblical literalists) reconcile their belief in the Bible as absolute truth when many aspects of the Bible have been proven to be wrong?

Body removed for Size and relevence

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=apologetics&btnG=Google+Search

Hope this Helps you out.

God Bless

Key

 

[heron]

The flood story actually has many corresponding stories in other cultures. I have also watched archaeology shows where field scientists find fossilized slabs of mud with apparent stampedes--animals that died en masse in the mud. I think that one of these spots was in Alaska or northern Canada.

The flood story was written by one person in one region, and there was very limited communication from continent to continent.

This is the word used for entire "earth" in Genesis 6. It also means "region."

http://studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0776

The sticks story, yes, that's kind of funny. But it's similar to stories where God asked people to do something outlandish out of obedience, and God made it work. Who knows...maybe something in their genetics made some allergic to a certain kind of shrub.

 

[Faith In God]

How do Christians (specifically, Biblical literalists) reconcile their belief in the Bible as absolute truth when many aspects of the Bible have been proven to be wrong?

People who believe in a literal six-day creation occuring 6000 years ago must reconcile that information with the facts of Earth being billions of years old. Some have backed away from a literal six-day creation and suggest that "days" refers to larger periods of time, such as eons or epochs. But for those who still hold the Earth to be young, what makes you deny scientific fact?

Ever hear of creation science?

Guess what they say?

Exactly what evolutionists say about creationists.

...

People who believe in the worldwide flood story of Noah must reconcile this belief with the discovery of areas that show no evidence of water for the past 2 million years, as well as with the lack of any other evidence of a worldwide flood.

Ever hear of creation science?

Those are the big ones, the big stories. But there are others. In Genesis 30:37-43, it talks about Jacob affecting the colouration of goat offspring by forcing the parent goats to look at sticks of varying colouration. Again, this process is not supported by any known facts and has been entirely disproved through genetics. So, is this story a factual historical account, or a mere fable?

It doesn't mean anything. Jacob might've been superstitious. I seem to recall Jacob's second wife asking his first for mandrakes and them seemingly "working". Doesn't mean it was the cause.

In short, some portions of the Bible are not supported by the facts. Other portions of the Bible are outright contradicted by the facts. So, how much of the Bible is true? Is there any evidence that the Bible is true? I've heard about prophecies made in the Bible; what are those prophecies, and have they been shown to have come true?

**Just to get this out of the way now, saying that the proof that the Bible is true is "because the Bible says it is true" is not a sustainable answer.

If the Bible says it is true, and it is, then what else is there?

I shy away from the evolution arguments, for I don't know whose "facts" are more valid.

The other "bible science" remains quite factual and provable.

My $0.02 for now...

 

[salida]

How do Christians (specifically, Biblical literalists) reconcile their belief in the Bible as absolute truth when many aspects of the Bible have been proven to be wrong?

People who believe in a literal six-day creation occuring 6000 years ago must reconcile that information with the facts of Earth being billions of years old. Some have backed away from a literal six-day creation and suggest that "days" refers to larger periods of time, such as eons or epochs. But for those who still hold the Earth to be young, what makes you deny scientific fact?

People who believe in the worldwide flood story of Noah must reconcile this belief with the discovery of areas that show no evidence of water for the past 2 million years, as well as with the lack of any other evidence of a worldwide flood.

Those are the big ones, the big stories. But there are others. In Genesis 30:37-43, it talks about Jacob affecting the colouration of goat offspring by forcing the parent goats to look at sticks of varying colouration. Again, this process is not supported by any known facts and has been entirely disproved through genetics. So, is this story a factual historical account, or a mere fable?

In short, some portions of the Bible are not supported by the facts. Other portions of the Bible are outright contradicted by the facts. So, how much of the Bible is true? Is there any evidence that the Bible is true? I've heard about prophecies made in the Bible; what are those prophecies, and have they been shown to have come true?

**Just to get this out of the way now, saying that the proof that the Bible is true is "because the Bible says it is true" is not a sustainable answer.

No offense but just the opposite is true about the Bible. They still til this day continue to find archealogical evidence that supports it. Well, you mention "they found". Who is "they"?

The Bible is the most true book in the world and doesn't contradict itself but compliments itself. A contradiction is when two things can't happen at the same time. Where is this the case?

It the only religious book that has hundreds of prophesies in it that has come true;prophesies that are going to come to pass in Relevation, it has science in it, law, history, wisdom, a song book, poems. Truly a guide book from God.

A book called Examine the Evidence by Muncaster is really good. He was an athiest and is now a christian. Also, a book called The Case for A Creator by Lee Strobel - another athiest to christian story.

When one truly researches it, they find how its the most true book that exists. That is how "we christians" can believe this as a secondary sense. Most importantly its because we know we have a need to repent of our sins and turn to Christ. The Holy Spirit bears witness to our human spirit that Jesus is the Son of God. The Bible is a spiritual book. God reveals these things to those who believe that have a need to turn from their sins and ask Jesus to forgive them of their sins.

Again, who is "they"? Please give me your sources and I will answer them.

 

[Stinker]

I have found that both the Old and New Testaments contain many stories and major religious tenets of the Jewish captors, the Babylonians (587 B.C.) and the Persians (587 B.C.- 539-B.C.)

That does not diminish my faith in God at all.


However, if I were religious about science I would be in trouble. There are so many problems with carbon and other methods of dating things, that scientists just as well throw it all out and try to find new methods. Science has not improved on weather prediction (my worst pet-peeve with science) in fact it has worsened!!

Thanks to Mt. St. Helens (volcano eruption) we learned that fossilization can occur very rapidly. So much for the theory that it takes a very long time for this process to occur.

Thankfully, I am not religious about science.