Most of scripture was made up

[Lepomis]

It sounds to me like the error of trying to use the Bible as a science and history textbook has been exposed. This is good. Now you can learn the correct way to read it. I’m not going to try to interpret scripture for you. But the late Fr Thomas Hopko had a podcast (Speaking the Truth in Love) where he frequently dealt with these issues. In a nutshell, he in emphatic that the Bible is not a Koran. And you can’t read it like one.

At least give this one a listen (also available on iTunes).

https://www.ancientfaith.com/podcasts/hopko/how_to_read_the_bible


He also had a series of episodes on Darwin and Christianity (17 podcasts, so there is a time commitment). But he spends 3.5 hrs on the Genesis account alone, carefully explaining what it actually says.

He also had 4 other episodes that provide a good primer to reading the Old Testament.

Sex, Lies, and the Old Testament pt 1 & 2

Lies and Deceit in the Old Testament

War and Violence in the Old Testament

 

[Almost there]

I needed to find someone to talk to about this because I just lost my faith a week ago when I realized I allowed myself all these years to overlook so many things in the bible that now are sooo obviously made up because a perfect god wouldnt allow his own prophets, and servants who are responsible for writing whats in the bible to make so many mistakes, contradictions, and misinformations.

Ill begin by telling you folks I grew up with bible belt(USA) style Baptist bacround, so hardcore preaching, tought the KJV was perfect and infallible because it was Gods word from cover to cover.I dropped out and actually became mormon for 2 years when I was around 22-24yrs old. Then lost faith all together because of that bogus zeitgeist video that hit the internet several years ago. 2 years ago I started believing agian for certain reasons which I dont want to take up much time explaining, but just 5 days ago it all came to an end and for good.

I like to watch documentaries about history, science, spae, ect.. and all it took was watching several videos one night about human cities that keep being found which were about 10,000 yrs old, all in ruins but at least one of these cities were recorded in public record which has survived over the years and now we are fiding some of these cities.

So heres one problem I have now. Ive read the Bible Gen-Rev more than once, and Im familiar with the human geneology it provides between Great Charactors, and does manage to give an account for all generations of humans from adam and eve, all the way to Joseph the husband of mary, and that accounts for close to 5k years, and now being 2017 that makes a total of nearly 7k years.

OK so here is my first problem, if we are finding ruined cities that are 10,000yrs old with historical records to bak these dates up, then why did Moses write in the book of Genesis that man had been created more receant? I mean aside the dinosaur bones, and other reasons that scientists say the earth had life on it many millions of years back, but we have evidence of 10k yr old human cities that basially debunks Moses's version of how life started on this planet going back generations till were left with adam and eve in the beginning.


Soooo, even a mere 3-4k yr difference is still proving that Moses did not recieve these words from any God, because if there was a God who was around so long ago he wouldnt have misguided Moses. And not to mention, Moses made a mistake and never gave an explaination for how Cain's wife came into existance. He wrote in Genesis that adam and eve only gave birth to two sons, cain and abel, no daughters, and no other children.

It started to become obvious to me that this was becoming a problem now, because if Moses was to be revealed as a lair or a storyteller instead of a real life hero for the jews and deliverer of the law, then the one god he claimed who created everything, and laid down so many rules/laws on believers never existed.

If it werent for Moses then neither christians, muslims, or jews would have the believe that there is a single God and creator that demands our worship, and has either eternal punishment, or eternal life for those who lived and passed on earth. So ya, this is just one single thing that just now dawned on me was a fictional story made up by man, which is why errors have been revealed.

Now for those who are thinking that Moses is a true Prophet of God, and wouldnt add anything more than what God had him put there, you have to refer yourself back to your old testament in Deut 18:22, and I quote "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him"

Sounds to me like something a false prophet would say so everyone dont turn on him. But it further my point that the sriptures were written by man, and man alone.

Now on to the new testament. The NT is suppose to be our later day instrutions from the son of god, that being Jesus. He grows up amonst common man, eventually starts his ministry and begins preaching and teaching a new doctrine of salvation, not by the blood of animals, but rather believing and repenting of thier sins would justify them in front of the father. He then became the symbol of the perfect sacrifice to end all sacrifices.

Now The problem I have with the new testament is the various verses throughout both the 4 gospels, and another popular book in the NT. You see in the 4 gospels, John the baptist, Jesus, and the desciples would go around teaching that the people just needed to believe in jesus to be saved, have faith in him, or confess him with thier mouths, all these would automatically earn you a place in heaven. But, they also told the people other times that if tey didnt repent, they would in other words go to hell.

Now even if you were to say they collectively said to believe and repent, why in the heck did james come along and disagree with all of them about what one must do, or what quality he must have to earn salvation and avoid hell. This is what I mean: Ephes 2:8"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God", then james flips the script: james 2:24 "You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only".

The doctrine of salvation for us would be the most important, because we rely on it so we know how to avoid eternal destruction in hell but live with god in heaven. Now how the heck are you suppoe to know whether or not works matter when one passage says "works" matter, and one says it doesnt. James starting in 2:14 to the end of the chapter goes at it from all angles to try and explain to people that they need to get it out of thier heads that faith and believing alone does no good. Jesus says it can, but james says it cant.

I have a great answer why this contradiction exists here, and that is beause all these gospels and the rest of these scriptures didnt even start to pop up and be written untill 130 or so years after christ and the desciples were dead and gone. And another funny fact to consider, that the romans kept record of things and events even in those days and there were absolutely no public record of any event happening at the time Jesus was supposably on earth. No record of a crucifiction of a popular jew, or any records made about someone going around with supernatural power healing and raising the dead.

Once agian, these contradictions keep ocuring because idiots throughout time keep purposely writing these things then show people and they start a religious movement right there, fake prophets can get rich off of thier claim that god uses them to deliver personal messages, and are darn near worshipped themselves because they an feel free imposing new law and the people, and sadly humans are just too gullable to know these fakes are basically making themselves a king among the simple minded.


These are just some of the reasons I just lost daith for good. I had to get it all out, whether or not if anyone bothers reading al of it, but I just needed just one sensable person to read it all and tell me if im just tripping, or could I be right.

I live in Kentucky and moved here from Seattle six years ago. I've been a Christian since 1980. After being in a southern gospel band here for two years and hearing the teaching and seeing the lifestyles of people in a LOT of these baptist churches down here, I'm not surprised you "wised up". But the problem is not Christianity. The problem is that culture and thier bible INTERPRETATIONS.

The bible is sound, though I avoid the KJV because it's not in the language I speak. And that is one thing I get judged about around here. The other thing is I believe this 100%: Jewishnotgreek.com.

By all means, as a thinking man you should leave the "KJV only bible belt baptists", but don't leave God. He is real! And His word is TRUE. But you should worship GOD, not the bible. The bible is simply good for teaching. It only contradicts itself in the same way that Yogi Berra contradicted himself when, describing a restaurant, he said, "Nobody goes there any more because it's too crowded."

We know exactly what he meant, and Christians understand the "apparently" contradictory places in the bible - what they are really communicating.

Do you live near me? I'd like to meet at a coffee shop or something (central KY).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I needed to find someone to talk to about this because I just lost my faith a week ago when I realized I allowed myself all these years to overlook so many things in the bible that now are sooo obviously made up because a perfect god wouldnt allow his own prophets, and servants who are responsible for writing whats in the bible to make so many mistakes, contradictions, and misinformations.

Ill begin by telling you folks I grew up with bible belt(USA) style Baptist bacround, so hardcore preaching, tought the KJV was perfect and infallible because it was Gods word from cover to cover.I dropped out and actually became mormon for 2 years when I was around 22-24yrs old. Then lost faith all together because of that bogus zeitgeist video that hit the internet several years ago. 2 years ago I started believing agian for certain reasons which I dont want to take up much time explaining, but just 5 days ago it all came to an end and for good.

I like to watch documentaries about history, science, spae, ect.. and all it took was watching several videos one night about human cities that keep being found which were about 10,000 yrs old, all in ruins but at least one of these cities were recorded in public record which has survived over the years and now we are fiding some of these cities.

So heres one problem I have now. Ive read the Bible Gen-Rev more than once, and Im familiar with the human geneology it provides between Great Charactors, and does manage to give an account for all generations of humans from adam and eve, all the way to Joseph the husband of mary, and that accounts for close to 5k years, and now being 2017 that makes a total of nearly 7k years.

OK so here is my first problem, if we are finding ruined cities that are 10,000yrs old with historical records to bak these dates up, then why did Moses write in the book of Genesis that man had been created more receant? I mean aside the dinosaur bones, and other reasons that scientists say the earth had life on it many millions of years back, but we have evidence of 10k yr old human cities that basially debunks Moses's version of how life started on this planet going back generations till were left with adam and eve in the beginning.


Soooo, even a mere 3-4k yr difference is still proving that Moses did not recieve these words from any God, because if there was a God who was around so long ago he wouldnt have misguided Moses. And not to mention, Moses made a mistake and never gave an explaination for how Cain's wife came into existance. He wrote in Genesis that adam and eve only gave birth to two sons, cain and abel, no daughters, and no other children.

It started to become obvious to me that this was becoming a problem now, because if Moses was to be revealed as a lair or a storyteller instead of a real life hero for the jews and deliverer of the law, then the one god he claimed who created everything, and laid down so many rules/laws on believers never existed.

If it werent for Moses then neither christians, muslims, or jews would have the believe that there is a single God and creator that demands our worship, and has either eternal punishment, or eternal life for those who lived and passed on earth. So ya, this is just one single thing that just now dawned on me was a fictional story made up by man, which is why errors have been revealed.

Now for those who are thinking that Moses is a true Prophet of God, and wouldnt add anything more than what God had him put there, you have to refer yourself back to your old testament in Deut 18:22, and I quote "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him"

Sounds to me like something a false prophet would say so everyone dont turn on him. But it further my point that the sriptures were written by man, and man alone.

Now on to the new testament. The NT is suppose to be our later day instrutions from the son of god, that being Jesus. He grows up amonst common man, eventually starts his ministry and begins preaching and teaching a new doctrine of salvation, not by the blood of animals, but rather believing and repenting of thier sins would justify them in front of the father. He then became the symbol of the perfect sacrifice to end all sacrifices.

Now The problem I have with the new testament is the various verses throughout both the 4 gospels, and another popular book in the NT. You see in the 4 gospels, John the baptist, Jesus, and the desciples would go around teaching that the people just needed to believe in jesus to be saved, have faith in him, or confess him with thier mouths, all these would automatically earn you a place in heaven. But, they also told the people other times that if tey didnt repent, they would in other words go to hell.

Now even if you were to say they collectively said to believe and repent, why in the heck did james come along and disagree with all of them about what one must do, or what quality he must have to earn salvation and avoid hell. This is what I mean: Ephes 2:8"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God", then james flips the script: james 2:24 "You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only".

The doctrine of salvation for us would be the most important, because we rely on it so we know how to avoid eternal destruction in hell but live with god in heaven. Now how the heck are you suppoe to know whether or not works matter when one passage says "works" matter, and one says it doesnt. James starting in 2:14 to the end of the chapter goes at it from all angles to try and explain to people that they need to get it out of thier heads that faith and believing alone does no good. Jesus says it can, but james says it cant.

I have a great answer why this contradiction exists here, and that is beause all these gospels and the rest of these scriptures didnt even start to pop up and be written untill 130 or so years after christ and the desciples were dead and gone. And another funny fact to consider, that the romans kept record of things and events even in those days and there were absolutely no public record of any event happening at the time Jesus was supposably on earth. No record of a crucifiction of a popular jew, or any records made about someone going around with supernatural power healing and raising the dead.

Once agian, these contradictions keep ocuring because idiots throughout time keep purposely writing these things then show people and they start a religious movement right there, fake prophets can get rich off of thier claim that god uses them to deliver personal messages, and are darn near worshipped themselves because they an feel free imposing new law and the people, and sadly humans are just too gullable to know these fakes are basically making themselves a king among the simple minded.


These are just some of the reasons I just lost daith for good. I had to get it all out, whether or not if anyone bothers reading al of it, but I just needed just one sensable person to read it all and tell me if im just tripping, or could I be right.

Well, I am a KJV guy and I remember having a brief moment of doubt in God's Word (that lasted for a few seconds). Some fancy scholar said in a Christian article that the KJV had errors in it. But did I really believe him? No. For after Jesus came to me and regenerated me and changed my life, there was no turning back for me. For where else could I go? Jesus had the words of eternal life (John 6:68).

Anyways, if you are truly after seeking the truth and in being objective, please check out my blogger article here on some really great evidences that back up God's Word (that proves it to be a divine book in origin).

Love Branch: February 2017

I pray and hope it will lead you back to our loving Lord.


Side Note:

Oh, and by the way, I am not Baptist. Most Baptists believe in Eternal Security or Once Saved Always Saved, which is a belief that I am strongly against (because Scripture teaches against it).

 

[JackRT]

In the first few decades of the last century a great deal of research went into trying to understand oral traditions while they were still around to study. This study was greatly assisted by the use of newly invented sound recording machines. They discovered that the storytellers work from a 'framework' but tailor the narrative to suit the needs and moods of the audience at the time. A story is never told the same way twice but the framework itself remains intact. Once such a story is committed to print it becomes locked in place for all time. Moreover once that has happened it becomes virtually impossible to discern what is framework and what is the story teller's own variation on the theme. I am convinced that this is what has happened in both the Jewish and Christian scriptural traditions. What we are reading are very human documents.

 

[klutedavid]

In the first few decades of the last century a great deal of research went into trying to understand oral traditions while they were still around to study. This study was greatly assisted by the use of newly invented sound recording machines. They discovered that the storytellers work from a 'framework' but tailor the narrative to suit the needs and moods of the audience at the time. A story is never told the same way twice but the framework itself remains intact. Once such a story is committed to print it becomes locked in place for all time. Moreover once that has happened it becomes virtually impossible to discern what is framework and what is the story teller's own variation on the theme. I am convinced that this is what has happened in both the Jewish and Christian scriptural traditions. What we are reading are very human documents.

Hello JackRT.

I don't regard the revelation contained in the prophets as the writing of men. The messianic prophecies and the visions of God are authentic scripture, God's signature is undeniable. Isaiah and Zechariah for example, are authentic scripture.

Luke's Gospel for example, states that Luke has recorded eye witness testimony of the life of Jesus. Hence, I do not regard what Luke wrote as written by God, i.e., scripture.
Luke is not error free, rather a very solid view of the life of Christ.

Different letters and books in the Bible have different levels of authority for us.

The primary purpose of the Bible is the revelation of the Christ to humanity, everything else is irrelevant.

 

[KWCrazy]

By all means, as a thinking man you should leave the "KJV only bible belt baptists", but don't leave God. He is real! And His word is TRUE.

I was raised on the KJV and I love the poetic way it phrases things as opposed to the more modern versions, but Old English is not the language I speak either. It wasn't the language of Jesus, Moses Paul or any of the old testament authors. I believe that the Bible as written is incorruptible, but there are things written which no not make much sense to us because the language is different and the culture is different. Not being shepherds, much of the meaning of what Jesus taught escapes us. There are cultural differences that we simply do not understand. Rival nomadic tribes clinging for life in the same sand sometimes result in wars to the ultimate destruction of the other; something our buffered minds can't quite comprehend. Still, the Word is truth though it can take a lifetime to understand fully. I know a lot of "Bible Belt Baptists." I've found them to be among the finest people on earth.

Being a native Michigander transplanted to Kentucky I know that the difference in cultures can be a little overwhelming. Many here take their religion seriously. That's a good thing. If one is to err, following the Word too closely is better than not following it closely enough. There is no reconciling the Bible with science. Many of the events in the Bible were deliberately made to go against natural law. That's how God proved Himself then. His miracles still prove Himself today; if we have the faith to accept them.

If.

 

[JackRT]

The Roman Catholic English language Douay-Rheims Version of the Bible was published just a few years before the King James Version and has the same elegant Jacobean English language. I suspect that most Christians presented with the same passage in both the KJV and the DRV would not be able to say which was which. I sometimes wonder if the KJV translators were influenced at all by the DRV. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.

 

[Hammster]

ADMIN HAT ON



Closed for review.


ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has had a clean, and has been moved to the Exploring Christianity forum.​

Please note and abide by the Statement of Purpose of this forum.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Almost there]

I was raised on the KJV and I love the poetic way it phrases things as opposed to the more modern versions, but Old English is not the language I speak either. It wasn't the language of Jesus, Moses Paul or any of the old testament authors. I believe that the Bible as written is incorruptible, but there are things written which no not make much sense to us because the language is different and the culture is different. Not being shepherds, much of the meaning of what Jesus taught escapes us. There are cultural differences that we simply do not understand. Rival nomadic tribes clinging for life in the same sand sometimes result in wars to the ultimate destruction of the other; something our buffered minds can't quite comprehend. Still, the Word is truth though it can take a lifetime to understand fully. I know a lot of "Bible Belt Baptists." I've found them to be among the finest people on earth.

Being a native Michigander transplanted to Kentucky I know that the difference in cultures can be a little overwhelming. Many here take their religion seriously. That's a good thing. If one is to err, following the Word too closely is better than not following it closely enough. There is no reconciling the Bible with science. Many of the events in the Bible were deliberately made to go against natural law. That's how God proved Himself then. His miracles still prove Himself today; if we have the faith to accept them.

If.

True story:

We were in a service in our first Southern Baptist church when we moved to KY about six years ago. They are a KJV only congregation. So, we come across a rather confusing scripture and the pastor explains to the congregation what it actually meant. My wife had her little NIV bible opened and I was reading what it said. But I noticed - and I am not making this up - that I am reading, word for word, EXACTLY what the pastor is saying.

i.e. the pastor's "explanation" was word for word what the NIV version said, and h didn't even know it.

I'm completely in agreement with you regarding the value of the KJV. But the real problem in the Bible Belt is that adherence to that version seems to, in a real way, KEEP people in the dark.

FWIW, I don't use "16th century speak" in prayers either. I even convert "thees" and "thous" "you" and "Your" when singing hymns.

 

[~Anastasia~]

True story:

We were in a service in our first Southern Baptist church when we moved to KY about six years ago. They are a KJV only congregation. So, we come across a rather confusing scripture and the pastor explains to the congregation what it actually meant. My wife had her little NIV bible opened and I was reading what it said. But I noticed - and I am not making this up - that I am reading, word for word, EXACTLY what the pastor is saying.

i.e. the pastor's "explanation" was word for word what the NIV version said, and h didn't even know it.

I'm completely in agreement with you regarding the value of the KJV. But the real problem in the Bible Belt is that adherence to that version seems to, in a real way, KEEP people in the dark.

FWIW, I don't use "16th century speak" in prayers either. I even convert "thees" and "thous" "you" and "Your" when singing hymns.

Speaking of "stories" ...

I was once kicked out of a group instantly for having the opinion that any Bible other than the KJV could be useful and true.

Another time I lost a dear friend for gently defending the idea that whether one prayed with "thees and thous" or modern English, it could still be acceptable to God. (Sadly I think other hurts figured into this severing, and nothing to do with me that I'm aware of, but 8 years later the estrangement stands.)

Better that we focus on the majors than such minors, and sad that we can grieve one another over them. Lord have mercy.

 

[Almost there]

Speaking of "stories" ...

I was once kicked out of a group instantly for having the opinion that any Bible other than the KJV could be useful and true.

Another time I lost a dear friend for gently defending the idea that whether one prayed with "thees and thous" or modern English, it could still be acceptable to God. (Sadly I think other hurts figured into this severing, and nothing to do with me that I'm aware of, but 8 years later the estrangement stands.)

Better that we focus on the majors than such minors, and sad that we can grieve one another over them. Lord have mercy.

Yup. BTW, in our sunday school class at that same church I was asked to read a few verses out loud. The reaction was almost as if I'd slandered the president. I read them out of my NIV version.

After I had been a Christian for 18 years and always attended the same church, I ended up having to leave. It's interesting that it felt almost as though I'd left God. I actually realized that I had lifted up the congregation TOO high as a form of "God incarnate" in a way. It was a teaching moment for me. I can now change churches on a dime if necessary. My relationship is with HIM primarily and the members of my church are just other people like me, and like the people in all the churches out there.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yup. BTW, in our sunday school class at that same church I was asked to read a few verses out loud. The reaction was almost as if I'd slandered the president. I read them out of my NIV version.

After I had been a Christian for 18 years and always attended the same church, I ended up having to leave. It's interesting that it felt almost as though I'd left God. I actually realized that I had lifted up the congregation TOO high as a form of "God incarnate" in a way. It was a teaching moment for me. I can now change churches on a dime if necessary. My relationship is with HIM primarily and the members of my church are just other people like me, and like the people in all the churches out there.

Gotta love those little lessons. It seems as though God knows when and how to introduce them.

But sometimes the revelations can cause some pain too. Though in the end I think it's worth it.

God be with you!

 

[KWCrazy]

I think that so long as the writers make a diligent effort at accuracy; and I think they do- to the point of going back to the original Greek text; adjustments to the language are fine. Jesus spoke Aramaic, not old English. It's not the thees or thous that people are hiding from, but the "Thou shalt not's."

 

[tansy]

well Im pretty sure its not all made up. I do believe moses existed, and even possibly led the jews to thier promise land. I no longer believe that they heard gods voice coming from the sky speaking the commandments, or gods voice from a burning bush. I think moses intentions were for the best, and thought if he told them god was supporting them that they would gain confidence and stand up to the egyptians and leave, and it worked. But I no longer believe any of his writings in genesis about the creation and ancestory starting with adam and eve. that was for sure made up. and you have to admit thats possible he did, deut 18:22 says god's prophets are capable of making things up.

Two or three points:- Firstly, not all scholars think that Moses was necessarily the author of each of the Books which have been ascribed to him in the past.
Secondly, I see no reason for God's not having spoken to Moses whether via a burning bush or in any other way. Many Christians today 'hear God'...not very often, though occasionally, audibly...God speaks in many ways.
Thirdly, there are all sorts of views regarding creation and Adam and Eve...some would say that God used this story to illustrate in an understandable way, the precarious circumstances of mankind and our need for a saviour. Others would say, that it is absolutely literal...I fall somewhere inbetween those two views - I think there are many layers of potential understanding regarding the Creation narrative. There are also two separate accounts, one perhaps more detailed than the other...many scholars say they were written by two different people.
For me, although there would appear to be discrepancies, overall, the whole of the Bible hangs together. And what I find interesting is, that as you go into it more, you can discover answers to things that have puzzled you. For example, I was always puzzled about a verse in Mark 6:39
'And He commanded them all to sit down by groups on the green grass'. I thought, why mention green grass, not simply grass. And eventually I came across some commentary on it, which explained its significance (can't remember what that was now, it was years ago). But anyhow, it then made sense. There is much like that in Scripture, and it makes me think, wow, amazing.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I like to watch documentaries about history, science, spae, ect.. and all it took was watching several videos one night about human cities that keep being found which were about 10,000 yrs old, all in ruins but at least one of these cities were recorded in public record which has survived over the years and now we are fiding some of these cities.

So heres one problem I have now. Ive read the Bible Gen-Rev more than once, and Im familiar with the human geneology it provides between Great Charactors, and does manage to give an account for all generations of humans from adam and eve, all the way to Joseph the husband of mary, and that accounts for close to 5k years, and now being 2017 that makes a total of nearly 7k years.

OK so here is my first problem, if we are finding ruined cities that are 10,000yrs old with historical records to bak these dates up, then why did Moses write in the book of Genesis that man had been created more receant? I mean aside the dinosaur bones, and other reasons that scientists say the earth had life on it many millions of years back, but we have evidence of 10k yr old human cities that basially debunks Moses's version of how life started on this planet going back generations till were left with adam and eve in the beginning.

Let's address this first.

Why do you think Moses wrote Genesis? There's no evidence that he did in the Bible itself. That Moses wrote all five books of the Pentateuch is a tradition, but isn't actually a claim the Bible itself makes. The general scholarly consensus is what's known as the Documentary Hypothesis, that the Pentateuch is the result of a redaction from several sources, named J, E, P, and D. J stands for the Yahwehist, who refers to God most prominently by the Sacred Name YHVH (the reason why it is "J" is because of Jehovah, an archaic corruption of the Sacred Name dating to a medieval scribal accident). E stands for the Elohimist who refers to God most prominently using Elohim. For example, here, Genesis ch. 1 is considered to have been written by E, while Genesis 2 was written by J. Then there's P, the Priestly writer, whose emphasis is on the Jewish priesthood. And finally D, the Deuteronomist, who wrote Deuteronomy. The Documentary Hyposthesis is not without its critics, and it's not by any means certain, but it is generally the more widely accepted hypothesis of the Penteteuch's origins.

Believing that Moses authored the Penteteuch all by himself is not a Christian doctrine, it is not something one has to believe to be a Christian, the Documentary Hypothesis can be true and it does no damage to Christianity.

Further, there's nothing in the text to suggest the earth must be less than 10k years old. Young Earth Creationism is not a definitive Christian doctrine either, there are Christian YECs, but there are millions of Christians who aren't, for example there are many Old Earth Creationists and Christians who accept an old universe, old earth, and the scientific theories of the big bang, evolution, etc. I'm one of them, I accept that the universe is about 14 billion years old, the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, and life has been evolving on earth for about the last 3 billion. Human beings evolved from a common ancestor with our closest living relatives--the chimps--about 5 million years ago. What this means, of course, is that we don't interpret the first chapter of Genesis literally, but that's not a new thing, Christians have understood the early chapters of Genesis non-literally for the last two thousand years. Here's what the Church Father Origen of Alexandria wrote in the 3rd century AD,

"But, that our meaning may be ascertained by the facts themselves, let us examine the passages of Scripture. Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will regard the statement as appropriate, that the first day, and the second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars— the first day even without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards the east, and a tree of life in it, i.e., a visible and palpable tree of wood, so that anyone eating of it with bodily teeth should obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some mystical meaning may be indicated by it. The departure of Cain from the presence of the Lord will manifestly cause a careful reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and how anyone can go out from it. But not to extend the task which we have before us beyond its due limits, it is very easy for anyone who pleases to gather out of holy Scripture what is recorded indeed as having been done, but what nevertheless cannot be believed as having reasonably and appropriately occurred according to the historical account." - Origen of Alexandria, De Principiis, Book IV.16

St. Augustine of Hippo, likewise wrote,

"It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation." - St. Augustine of Hippo, De Genesis ad Litteram, Book I.19

Your upbringing in a Fundamentalist church in the Bible Belt no doubt led you to a belief that the Christian religion asserts Young Earth Creationism, a rejection of certain scientific views, and the like. And you'll likewise find those views promoted on this website. But it's hardly universal, and it's hardly a matter of basic Christian teaching. Mainstream Christians from a diversity of theological and denominational backgrounds (Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Orthodox, Baptist, Methodist, Anglican, etc) are fine with the mainstream scientific consensus, and it doesn't require a modification of our beliefs to accept it--for some of us it's simply what we grew up accepting anyway.

Perhaps you might find these resources helpful:
BioLogos
TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Roman Catholic English language Douay-Rheims Version of the Bible was published just a few years before the King James Version and has the same elegant Jacobean English language. I suspect that most Christians presented with the same passage in both the KJV and the DRV would not be able to say which was which. I sometimes wonder if the KJV translators were influenced at all by the DRV. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.

The translators of the KJV were certainly influenced by the same source that the DRV was, namely the Vulgate. The DRV being a translation of the Vulgate into English; the KJV while chiefly using the Masoretic Text and several critical editions of the Greek (namely those of Erasmus and Stephanus) nevertheless also took significant inspiration from the LXX and Vulgate. There are a number of cases where the LXX reading was chosen in favor of the MT, such as Psalm 22:16 where the Masoretic literally translated reads "like a lion, my hands and feet" while the LXX instead reads "they pierced my hands and feet", the KJV has clearly chosen the LXX reading over the MT. And the most obvious borrowing of the Vulgate can be seen in retaining the word "lucifer" in Isaiah 14.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Sketcher]

So heres one problem I have now. Ive read the Bible Gen-Rev more than once, and Im familiar with the human geneology it provides between Great Charactors, and does manage to give an account for all generations of humans from adam and eve, all the way to Joseph the husband of mary, and that accounts for close to 5k years, and now being 2017 that makes a total of nearly 7k years.

OK so here is my first problem, if we are finding ruined cities that are 10,000yrs old with historical records to bak these dates up, then why did Moses write in the book of Genesis that man had been created more receant? I mean aside the dinosaur bones, and other reasons that scientists say the earth had life on it many millions of years back, but we have evidence of 10k yr old human cities that basially debunks Moses's version of how life started on this planet going back generations till were left with adam and eve in the beginning.


Soooo, even a mere 3-4k yr difference is still proving that Moses did not recieve these words from any God, because if there was a God who was around so long ago he wouldnt have misguided Moses. And not to mention, Moses made a mistake and never gave an explaination for how Cain's wife came into existance. He wrote in Genesis that adam and eve only gave birth to two sons, cain and abel, no daughters, and no other children.

It started to become obvious to me that this was becoming a problem now, because if Moses was to be revealed as a lair or a storyteller instead of a real life hero for the jews and deliverer of the law, then the one god he claimed who created everything, and laid down so many rules/laws on believers never existed.

If it werent for Moses then neither christians, muslims, or jews would have the believe that there is a single God and creator that demands our worship, and has either eternal punishment, or eternal life for those who lived and passed on earth. So ya, this is just one single thing that just now dawned on me was a fictional story made up by man, which is why errors have been revealed.

Now for those who are thinking that Moses is a true Prophet of God, and wouldnt add anything more than what God had him put there, you have to refer yourself back to your old testament in Deut 18:22, and I quote "When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him"

Sounds to me like something a false prophet would say so everyone dont turn on him. But it further my point that the sriptures were written by man, and man alone.

Not only is radiometric dating not an exact science, but the "years" may not refer to 8766 hours and the "sons" in some cases may be "descendants" which skip generations. In any event, Moses did receive the Law on the mountain with God, and more significantly, Jesus did rise from the dead. Dismissing either of these two events because of some other problems you may have with the text rather than on the merits of the evidence for them is unwise.

Now on to the new testament. The NT is suppose to be our later day instrutions from the son of god, that being Jesus. He grows up amonst common man, eventually starts his ministry and begins preaching and teaching a new doctrine of salvation, not by the blood of animals, but rather believing and repenting of thier sins would justify them in front of the father. He then became the symbol of the perfect sacrifice to end all sacrifices.

Now The problem I have with the new testament is the various verses throughout both the 4 gospels, and another popular book in the NT. You see in the 4 gospels, John the baptist, Jesus, and the desciples would go around teaching that the people just needed to believe in jesus to be saved, have faith in him, or confess him with thier mouths, all these would automatically earn you a place in heaven. But, they also told the people other times that if tey didnt repent, they would in other words go to hell.

Now even if you were to say they collectively said to believe and repent, why in the heck did james come along and disagree with all of them about what one must do, or what quality he must have to earn salvation and avoid hell. This is what I mean: Ephes 2:8"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God", then james flips the script: james 2:24 "You see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only".

The doctrine of salvation for us would be the most important, because we rely on it so we know how to avoid eternal destruction in hell but live with god in heaven. Now how the heck are you suppoe to know whether or not works matter when one passage says "works" matter, and one says it doesnt. James starting in 2:14 to the end of the chapter goes at it from all angles to try and explain to people that they need to get it out of thier heads that faith and believing alone does no good. Jesus says it can, but james says it cant.

Actually, Jesus, James, and Paul are in agreement. Consider "faith without works is dead." If you believe something, but refuse to operate out of that belief, then do you really believe at all? In the example he gave, Abraham almost sacrificing Issac, Abraham believed God to go through with the process right until God told him to stop and not harm the boy. He believed that God would provide an animal, or would raise Issac from the dead, because he knew that God told him that through Issac, his line would be reckoned. And so his works - taking Issac, the wood, and the torch to the mountain, building the altar, and even binding his son - demonstrated a live faith. We are supposed to believe God enough to obey him. It does not mean that we have to do enough good works to justify ourselves before God. No, we believe in Jesus enough so that we do not offer other sacrifices on altars, and we live to honor him.

I have a great answer why this contradiction exists here, and that is beause all these gospels and the rest of these scriptures didnt even start to pop up and be written untill 130 or so years after christ and the desciples were dead and gone.

False, the Gospels would have been written around 60-90ish AD.

And another funny fact to consider, that the romans kept record of things and events even in those days and there were absolutely no public record of any event happening at the time Jesus was supposably on earth. No record of a crucifiction of a popular jew, or any records made about someone going around with supernatural power healing and raising the dead.

You may wish to read the Annals by Tacitus. It refers to the Crucifixion.

 

[JackRT]

Not only is radiometric dating not an exact science,

Of course not. Every radiometric dating test comes with a carefully calculated range of error.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Not only is radiometric dating not an exact science,

There are different forms of radiometric dating. The most well known is Carbon dating, which measures the ratio between Carbon14 and Carbon12, Carbon14 being the form of carbon present in living things which decays into Carbon12 after an organism has died (Carbon12 is a far more stable isotope of carbon than Carbon14); since the half-life of Carbon14 is well established, measuring the ratio of the two gives us a pretty good indicator of the age of something, but it only works up to about six thousand years after which all the Carbon14 has decayed into Carbon12. To date anything older than that we need other dating methods, including other forms of radiometric dating, for example Uranium-Lead dating works on scales of billions of years, because it takes a very long time for uranium to decay into lead. But we also have other dating techniques such as dendrochronology and ice core sampling, which can work on the scales of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years.

Science uses a combination of techniques to arrive at a relative age. Naturally there is a variation, and which is why dates are often given with a +- symbol to account for that variation. But it is reliable on large time scales.

-CryptoLutheran