Pyramids and the flood

[BeyondET]

Or, here is one. Proverbs and Instruction of Amenemope:

(Proverbs 22:20): "Have I not written for you thirty sayings of counsel and knowledge?" (ESV)

(Amenemope, ch. 30, line 539): "Look to these thirty chapters; they inform, they educate."[29]

(Proverbs 22:17–18): "Incline thine ear, and hear the words of the wise, And apply thine heart to my doctrine; For it is pleasant if thou keep them in thy belly, that they may be established together upon thy lips"

(Amenemope, ch. 1): "Give thine ear, and hear what I say, And apply thine heart to apprehend; It is good for thee to place them in thine heart, let them rest in the casket of thy belly; That they may act as a peg upon thy tongue"[50]

Proverbs 23:4–5): "Toil not to become rich, And cease from dishonest gain; For wealth maketh to itself wings, Like an eagle that flieth heavenwards"

(Amenemope, ch. 7): "Toil not after riches; If stolen goods are brought to thee, they remain not over night with thee. They have made themselves wings like geese. And have flown into the heavens."[50


Egyptian texts, centuries older than the oldest manuscripts of the Bible.

YEC response: "oh well, the Egyptians were descendents after the flood and they actually just copied the book of Proverbs and changed it".

Wrong. Proverbs is ascribed to King Solomon, not Adam and Eve.

Dare I go further and ask the question, if Egyptians copied the text directly from Moses, could it be argued that Egyptian texts were divinely inspired too, if they say the same thing?

Hmm that's quite fascinating, thanks for sharing that detail, first I've heard of such things.

well God did talk to Adam and Eve descendants. The Hebrews could of been inspired to use it.

The Instructions of Amenemope (1) | Hebrew Word Study | Skip Moen

Extend your ear and hear the words of the wise, and apply your mind to my knowledge; Proverbs 22:17 NASB Words of the wise – Many years ago I led a Bible study on the book of Proverbs. When we reached this section (which runs to 24:22), I remarked that this material was most likely

skipmoen.com

 

[Doug Brents]

Do you know why God talks about kidneys guiding people?

Psalms 16:7 NRSV
[7] I bless the Lord who gives me counsel; in the night also my [kidneys] instructs me.

I'll give you a hint, the text is written in an ancient near east context.

Again, completely irrelevant. God put the words into the minds of the writers He chose as His instruments that He wanted written. This was always in the context of things the author and the audience would understand (cattle to a herdsman culture, farming to a farming culture, etc.).

 

[Doug Brents]

You're certainly free to believe that if you like. But there's nothing in scripture about God authoring things that way.

2 Tim 3:16-17

 

[River Jordan]

2 Tim 3:16-17

And that says nothing about God using "ghost writers" or that they were some sort of mindless robots into whom God put His words.

It specifically says scripture is "given by inspiration of God", which is very different than what you described. For example, some people are inspired by God to paint, but that doesn't mean God is actually doing the painting for them does it?

 

[Job 33:6]

Again, completely irrelevant. God put the words into the minds of the writers He chose as His instruments that He wanted written. This was always in the context of things the author and the audience would understand (cattle to a herdsman culture, farming to a farming culture, etc.).

If it is in the context of the authors and audience, then there is no reason to reject that the text speaks to things like an ancient near Eastern cosmology, which is of the context of the ancient isrealites.

I feel like YECs are trying to have their cake and eat it too. One minute, it's ok for the text to be written in an ancient near east context, but then the moment the text says something that they don't like, then for whatever reason, they pull the Bible out of that context and attempt to move the text into a 21st century context about things like science and human origins and geology and things of this nature.

 

[Doug Brents]

And that says nothing about God using "ghost writers" or that they were some sort of mindless robots into whom God put His words.

It specifically says scripture is "given by inspiration of God", which is very different than what you described. For example, some people are inspired by God to paint, but that doesn't mean God is actually doing the painting for them does it?

Is man fallen? Is it possible for 40 fallen men to write, over a period of 2500 years, over 780,000 words in 66 distinct books/letters that contain:
zero disagreements
zero contradictions
zero mistakes
and thousands of cross-references from beginning to end?

No, it is not even remotely possible for fallen man to do such a thing. Even one person trying to write the whole thing out on his own (or with Satan's influence (see the book of mormon, and the quoran) in just a few years cannot write such a document.

God is the only on who can do such a thing, and He did it through putting His words into the minds of His chosen instruments which they put down faithfully. The men who actually put pen to paper (or whatever) were simply the tools He used to do the writing, like a favored pen. God breathed (inspired) the words into them. If they had had any input into what it was they were writing, their fallen nature would have insinuated falsehoods into the text that would have perverted the message of God. But there are no perversions (in the original texts), and God tells us that His Word (not the writers word) is "beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work." It would not be beneficial for such things if it was man's work.

 

[Doug Brents]

If it is in the context of the authors and audience, then there is no reason to reject that the text speaks to things like an ancient near Eastern cosmology, which is of the context of the ancient isrealites.

I feel like YECs are trying to have their cake and eat it too. One minute, it's ok for the text to be written in an ancient near east context, but then the moment the text says something that they don't like, then for whatever reason, they pull the Bible out of that context and attempt to move the text into a 21st century context about things like science and human origins and geology and things of this nature.

It is not the text of Scripture that has changed. It is our understanding of what it says that has changed. It is clear from what is written that the Jews believed in a young Earth from the very beginning. And it is clear from what is written that they believed in Creation, not evolutionary "science". Did Israel (not Babylon, or Syria, or any other ancient culture) really believe the the nonsense that neighbors did (like you are promoting)? No, I don't believe they did. God gave them better understanding of what the world was like, and rather than explain God through what they saw in nature, they allowed God to explain to them what nature was really like.

 

[River Jordan]

Is man fallen? Is it possible for 40 fallen men to write, over a period of 2500 years, over 780,000 words in 66 distinct books/letters that contain:
zero disagreements
zero contradictions
zero mistakes
and thousands of cross-references from beginning to end?

No, it is not even remotely possible for fallen man to do such a thing. Even one person trying to write the whole thing out on his own (or with Satan's influence (see the book of mormon, and the quoran) in just a few years cannot write such a document.

God is the only on who can do such a thing, and He did it through putting His words into the minds of His chosen instruments which they put down faithfully. The men who actually put pen to paper (or whatever) were simply the tools He used to do the writing, like a favored pen. God breathed (inspired) the words into them. If they had had any input into what it was they were writing, their fallen nature would have insinuated falsehoods into the text that would have perverted the message of God. But there are no perversions (in the original texts), and God tells us that His Word (not the writers word) is "beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man or woman of God may be fully capable, equipped for every good work." It would not be beneficial for such things if it was man's work.

Except for one thing.

There is no singular "Bible" or "scripture". There are lots of Bibles, many containing different verses and even books, and there are all sorts of translations as well.

Obviously they can't all be perfect, can they?

 

[Doug Brents]

Except for one thing.

There is no singular "Bible" or "scripture". There are lots of Bibles, many containing different verses and even books, and there are all sorts of translations as well.

Obviously they can't all be perfect, can they?

I said specifically that it was the original texts (in the original languages) that were inspired. The translations may contain differences because of the inherent personal bias that exists withing mankind about what he is reading.

As for what books are Scripture and what are not:
What we have as the OT had been accepted as Scripture by the Jews for centuries before Jesus came, and He gave credibility to it during His life (Matt 5:17-20, Luke 24:44).
Many of the NT books were accepted as Scripture during the first century (Peter acknowledged Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Pet 3:15-16)). Luke's Gospel was acknowledged as Scripture by Paul (1 Tim 5:18). And there are others as well.
Of the books that are included by some, but not others, there are many books, letters, etc. that contain contradictions to what is already considered Scripture. There cannot be any contradictions, so the book/letter that contradicts the more pure book/letter must be excluded. The majority of this debate was conducted within 300 years (or so, as I understand it) of the death of Christ. And so the Bible has been an accepted, unchanging collection since then. There are still some who want to include some of these excluded documents for one reason or another, but their reasons do not substantiate the inclusion.

I am by no means an expert on this, but this is what I understand from what I have read.

 

[River Jordan]

It is clear from what is written that the Jews believed in a young Earth from the very beginning.

Incorrect. For example, medieval Rabbis such as Maimonides and Gersonides espoused non-literal interpretations of Genesis in the 1100's and 1200's. Nachmanides was promoting a non-literal interpretation in the 1200's as well.

 

[River Jordan]

I said specifically that it was the original texts (in the original languages) that were inspired.

But again, which ones? Which books?

The translations may contain differences because of the inherent personal bias that exists withing mankind about what he is reading.

IOW, imperfect and subject to human fallibility.

And so the Bible has been an accepted, unchanging collection since then.

No it hasn't, at all.

There are still some who want to include some of these excluded documents for one reason or another, but their reasons do not substantiate the inclusion.

I am by no means an expert on this, but this is what I understand from what I have read.

So who decides which version is the true perfect Bible? You?

 

[Job 33:6]

It is not the text of Scripture that has changed. It is our understanding of what it says that has changed. It is clear from what is written that the Jews believed in a young Earth from the very beginning.

That's not actually true. What about the renown Jewish scholar, Rashi?

But further, the context of Genesis is that of the ancient near east, and we have dozens of sources demonstrating that ancient Jews and beyond, viewed creation in light of ancient near east cosmology.

The BHS and JPS, that is the Bible translation of the Jewish Publication Society, disagrees with what you're saying about Jewish beliefs.

 

[Doug Brents]

Incorrect. For example, medieval Rabbis such as Maimonides and Gersonides espoused non-literal interpretations of Genesis in the 1100's and 1200's. Nachmanides was promoting a non-literal interpretation in the 1200's as well.

Fringe groups do not count. There have always been fringe groups who Satan has trying to discredit the Word of God.

But again, which ones? Which books?

The 66 books that are included in the Bible are the most reliable, verifiable, consistent, and trustworthy books to be called Scripture. Again, I am not an expert, but from what I understand we don't have any of the original letters as written by the original writers. But we do have many, many (thousands of) copies of them that date within 100 to 200 years from when the original was written (and the copies are all identical (for the most part) which gives great credibility to their veracity).

IOW, imperfect and subject to human fallibility.

That is why we should not trust to just one translation. When I am in doubt about the meaning of a certain passage, I always look to the original language, and I look at the translations given by all of the "word for word" translations that are out there. I seldom refer to the "word for thought" translations (because it gives too much room for interpretation when you insert your thought for God's word), and I NEVER refer to the "paraphrased" writings that some have done ("the message")(these are simply some man's opinions about what God said).

No it hasn't, at all.

For the most part, it has. There have always been some who want to introduce man's opinions into God's Word, and they have tried many ways of doing so (the paraphrases of Scripture is one of the most recent), but the core 66 books of the Bible remains as the most widely accepted Scripture.

So who decides which version is the true perfect Bible? You?

No, certainly not by me. I am simply a learner and follower of God, not an expert or theologian by any means. As I said, all of the translations contain errors, and there is no one who speaks or commonly uses the dead language in which the NT was written. This is good in that the language does not change as living languages do. But it is bad in that we must always translate from that language into whatever language it is we do speak.

But as I said, it is through review and study of all of the different trustworthy translations (word for word) that the truth can more surely be found.

 

[Job 33:6]

Wisdom 11:17 NRSVUE
[17] For your all-powerful hand, which created the world out of formless matter, did not lack the means to send upon them a multitude of bears or bold lions

Another source^. @David Lamb you might like this one too.

 

[Job 33:6]

"And we have been taught that He in the beginning did of His goodness, for man's sake, create all things out of unformed matter; and if men by their works show themselves worthy of this His design, they are deemed worthy, and so we have received — of reigning in company with Him, being delivered from corruption and suffering"

-Justin Martyr 150AD.

 

[River Jordan]

Fringe groups do not count. There have always been fringe groups who Satan has trying to discredit the Word of God.

Fringe groups? Where did you get the idea that those medieval Rabbis were a fringe group?

The 66 books that are included in the Bible are the most reliable, verifiable, consistent, and trustworthy books to be called Scripture.

Are you not aware that the Catholic Bible has 73 books and the Orthodox Bibles differ in their number of books too? To suggest that there's only one "Bible" across Christendom is ridiculous.

Again, I am not an expert, but from what I understand we don't have any of the original letters as written by the original writers. But we do have many, many (thousands of) copies of them that date within 100 to 200 years from when the original was written (and the copies are all identical (for the most part) which gives great credibility to their veracity).

So everything we have is a copy and translation, which you acknowledge are processes prone to human fallibility, which makes it odd IMO to believe that it all produced a perfect infallible product.

That is why we should not trust to just one translation. When I am in doubt about the meaning of a certain passage, I always look to the original language, and I look at the translations given by all of the "word for word" translations that are out there. I seldom refer to the "word for thought" translations (because it gives too much room for interpretation when you insert your thought for God's word), and I NEVER refer to the "paraphrased" writings that some have done ("the message")(these are simply some man's opinions about what God said).

I agree!

For the most part, it has. There have always been some who want to introduce man's opinions into God's Word, and they have tried many ways of doing so (the paraphrases of Scripture is one of the most recent), but the core 66 books of the Bible remains as the most widely accepted Scripture.

No, that's just not true at all. See above.

No, certainly not by me. I am simply a learner and follower of God, not an expert or theologian by any means. As I said, all of the translations contain errors, and there is no one who speaks or commonly uses the dead language in which the NT was written. This is good in that the language does not change as living languages do. But it is bad in that we must always translate from that language into whatever language it is we do speak.

Indeed, and is why we should be humble about our own interpretations.

But as I said, it is through review and study of all of the different trustworthy translations (word for word) that the truth can more surely be found.

I very much doubt that most Christians go through all the different versions and translations that are out there. Most people have neither the time nor the expertise for that.

 

[Doug Brents]

Fringe groups? Where did you get the idea that those medieval Rabbis were a fringe group?

One, because I have never even heard of them. They are not the core of the Christ followers of the world. Most rabbis don't even believe that Jesus is God's Son or the Messiah, so these minor sects and (yes) fringe groups are of no consequence.

Are you not aware that the Catholic Bible has 73 books and the Orthodox Bibles differ in their number of books too? To suggest that there's only one "Bible" across Christendom is ridiculous.

Cite rules forbid me telling you what I think about the catholic cult's relationship to "Christendom". But their views (and additional books of study) have no place in this discussion (being akin to the book of mormon and the quran).

So everything we have is a copy and translation, which you acknowledge are processes prone to human fallibility, which makes it odd IMO to believe that it all produced a perfect infallible product.

As I said, the thousands of copies are all identical (for the most part, a missing accent here, etc.). So the ancient "original" texts that we have are very reliable as being authentic and identical to the originals.
As for the translations, as you agree below, it is very important to study from multiple "word for word" translations, not trusting to just a single translator.

I agree!

Indeed, and is why we should be humble about our own interpretations.

I very much doubt that most Christians go through all the different versions and translations that are out there. Most people have neither the time nor the expertise for that.

That is why it is so helpful to have sites like biblehub.com handy, because it give a single verse in close to 30 translations (only 5 or 6 of which are actually word for word) so that close comparison can be done in one place. And at the bottom of the page it gives the original Greek or Hebrew form which the passage was translated.

 

[Job 33:6]

Rashi on Genesis 1:1

בראשית IN THE BEGINNING — Rabbi Isaac said: The Torah which is the Law book of Israel should have commenced with the verse (Exodus 12:2) “This month shall be...

www.sefaria.org

It's shocking to see it, but it's clear as day. You can't make this stuff up. These Jewish scholars of antiquity were not YEC, and they were not fringe. Here, Rashi drops a major bomb. Plain as day, and writes it out exactly as the NRSV states it @David Lamb you just have to read it.

בראשית ברא IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED — This verse calls aloud for explanation in the manner that our Rabbis explained it: God created the world for the sake of the Torah which is called (Proverbs 8:22) “The beginning (ראשית) of His (God’s) way”, and for the sake of Israel who are called (Jeremiah 2:3) “The beginning (ראשית) of His (God’s) increase’’. If, however, you wish to explain it in its plain sense, explain it thus: At the beginning of the Creation of heaven and earth when the earth was without form and void and there was darkness, God said, “Let there be light”. The text does not intend to point out the order of the acts of Creation — to state that these (heaven and earth) were created first; for if it intended to point this out, it should have written 'בראשונה ברא את השמים וגו “At first God created etc.” And for this reason: Because, wherever the word ראשית occurs in Scripture, it is in the construct state. E. g., (Jeremiah 26:1) “In the beginning of (בראשית) the reign of Jehoiakim”; (Genesis 10:10) “The beginning of (ראשית) his kingdom”; (Deuteronomy 18:4) “The first fruit of (ראשית) thy corn.” Similarly here you must translate בראשית ברא אלהים as though it read בראשית ברוא, at the beginning of God’s creating. A similar grammatical construction (of a noun in construct followed by a verb) is: (Hosea 1:2) תחלת דבר ה' בהושע, which is as much as to say, “At the beginning of God’s speaking through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea.” Should you, however, insist that it does actually intend to point out that these (heaven and earth) were created first, and that the meaning is, “At the beginning of everything He created these, admitting therefore that the word בראשית is in the construct state and explaining the omission of a word signifying “everything” by saying that you have texts which are elliptical, omitting a word, as for example (Job 3:10)

...because as a matter of fact the waters were created before heaven and earth, for, lo, it is written, (v. 2) “The Spirit of God was hovering on the face of the waters,” and Scripture had not yet disclosed when the creation of the waters took place — consequently you must learn from this that the creation of the waters preceded that of the earth. And a further proof that the heavens and earth were not the first thing created is that the heavens were created from fire (אש) and water (מים), from which it follows that fire and water were in existence before the heavens. Therefore you must admit that the text teaches nothing about the earlier or later sequence of the acts of Creation.

This was written nearly 1,000 years ago, and Rashi just absolutely knocks it out of the park.

@Doug Brents and he's not fringe by any means.

 

[River Jordan]

One, because I have never even heard of them. They are not the core of the Christ followers of the world. Most rabbis don't even believe that Jesus is God's Son or the Messiah, so these minor sects and (yes) fringe groups are of no consequence.

Cite rules forbid me telling you what I think about the catholic cult's relationship to "Christendom". But their views (and additional books of study) have no place in this discussion (being akin to the book of mormon and the quran).

So from your POV, Jews, Catholics, and Orthodox denominations are not at all reliable sources for info about ancient texts, Bibles, translations, etc.? Only Protestants count?

As I said, the thousands of copies are all identical (for the most part, a missing accent here, etc.). So the ancient "original" texts that we have are very reliable as being authentic and identical to the originals.
As for the translations, as you agree below, it is very important to study from multiple "word for word" translations, not trusting to just a single translator.

That is why it is so helpful to have sites like biblehub.com handy, because it give a single verse in close to 30 translations (only 5 or 6 of which are actually word for word) so that close comparison can be done in one place. And at the bottom of the page it gives the original Greek or Hebrew form which the passage was translated.

That's interesting given the above, where you seem to be saying that only Protestant Christian versions, translations, and interpretations are true. So on one hand you advocate for examining as much info as you can, but OTOH you completely dismiss anything from Jews, Catholics, and the Orthodox. Seems contradictory.

I think maybe (stressing "maybe") one of the main differences between us is that in my view, if you have a different interpretation of Genesis than me, that's just fine. I'm not going to argue that you're wrong, you're distrusting God, or anything like that. But I get the sense from your posts that someone like me having a different interpretation of Genesis than you is not "just fine" and is something you feel you need to argue against.

Do I have that right?

 

[Doug Brents]

So from your POV, Jews, Catholics, and Orthodox denominations are not at all reliable sources for info about ancient texts, Bibles, translations, etc.? Only Protestants count?

There are many Messianic Jews who believe the truth, and believe in the correct Scriptures. The majority of the Judaic Jews (non-Messianic) also believe in the same OT Scriptures that are in the 66 book Bible. As for the catholic and orthodox religions, they have so many false doctrines, practices, etc. that they are almost unrecognizable as Christian religions, other than that they call themselves "Christian", and this site's leadership refuses to acknowledge that they are not. So their views no what is and what is not Scripture is automatically suspect.

That's interesting given the above, where you seem to be saying that only Protestant Christian versions, translations, and interpretations are true. So on one hand you advocate for examining as much info as you can, but OTOH you completely dismiss anything from Jews, Catholics, and the Orthodox. Seems contradictory.

None of the Scriptures come from the Jews, catholics, or orthodox. It all comes from God (granted, the OT came through the Jews). What each of those groups recognize as Scripture is irrelevant to the truth. What ancient documents contain God's Word is what matters. And the extra books in what the catholics and orthodox religions recognize as Scripture contradict what is in the 66 book Bible, so they cannot be accepted as Scripture.

I think maybe (stressing "maybe") one of the main differences between us is that in my view, if you have a different interpretation of Genesis than me, that's just fine. I'm not going to argue that you're wrong, you're distrusting God, or anything like that. But I get the sense from your posts that someone like me having a different interpretation of Genesis than you is not "just fine" and is something you feel you need to argue against.

Do I have that right?

There are many practices we can have (like eating meat that was sacrificed to an idol) where we can have differing views and both still be right (1 Cor 8). But in many instances in Scripture there is only one "right" and everything else is wrong. If you are arguing that one species changes into another over time, and that all life sprang from slime in a pond billions of years ago, then yes, I feel that should be argued against (as long as we are both are seeking to find the truth from our discussion. If we are not interested in finding the truth, then there is no point in arguing/discussing it in the first place), because Scripture is very clear that each kind of animal and plant breeds true to the same kind of animal or plant. There is no room for "evolution" in Scripture's account of Creation.

So yes, there are some areas where we can agree to disagree and both of us be right with God. But there are some areas where there is only one truth, and I believe it should be fought for.