Shouldn't Creationism be taught at public schools?

[Semper-Fi]

There is no evidence these books were written by Moses. There is plenty of evidence these books were not written by Moses, though.

We do not know the names of those who wrote them, composed them, edited them. Most probably multiple persons throughout time. Most work being done sometime after the Babylonian exile.

Job 28:28
And unto man he [God] said, Behold, the fear of the Lord,
that is wisdom; And to depart from evil is understanding.

How ancient is the Bible, anyway? Which is more correct:
traditional dating or revised, late scholarly dating?

The Antiquity of the Scriptures: The Writings

The Antiquity of the Scriptures: The Writings

How ancient is the Bible, anyway? Which is more correct: traditional dating or revised, late scholarly dating?

armstronginstitute.org

The Antiquity of the Scriptures: The Prophets

The Antiquity of the Scriptures: The Prophets

How ancient is the Bible, anyway? Which is more correct: traditional dating or revised, late scholarly dating?

armstronginstitute.org

The Antiquity of the Scriptures: The Torah

The Antiquity of the Scriptures: The Torah

How ancient is the Bible, anyway? Which is more correct: traditional dating or revised, late scholarly dating?

armstronginstitute.org

The Oracles or [utterances]of God
Romans 3:1-5, Acts 7:38, Hebrews 5:12, 1 Peter 4:11,

Can You Trust the Masoretic Text? We should. It’s the most
accurately copied ancient document in human history.

Can You Trust the Masoretic Text?

We should. It’s the most accurately copied ancient document in human history.

armstronginstitute.org

-
The Bible ‘Is Not History’—Because It Doesn’t Cite Sources?

The Bible ‘Is Not History’—Because It Doesn't Cite Sources?

So goes a recent claim. If only the biblical authors had remembered to cite their sources ... or did they?

armstronginstitute.org

IT is "one endless stream of “source citation” and chronological anchoring,
be it from eyewitnesses authors, or from other, non-canonical texts.

Some Types of sources cross-referenced in the Bible
(Numbers 21:14)(Joshua 10:13)(1 Kings 11:41)(1 Kings 14:19)(1 Kings 14:29)
(1 Chronicles 27:24)(1 Chronicles 29:29)(2 Chronicles 9:29)(2 Chronicles 12:15)
(2 Chronicles 13:22)(2 Chronicles 20:34)(2 Chronicles 24:27)(2 Chronicles 33:18)
(2 Chronicles 33:19)(Ezra 4:15)(Esther 2:23)(Esther 10:2).

Also hundreds of cross-references between individual books of the Bible.
the Book of the Generations of Adam (Genesis 5:1) the Book of the
Generations of the Heavens and the Earth (Genesis 2:4; Septuagint).

The book of Ezra, for example, is virtually one continuous string of
citations and lengthy quotations:

King Cyrus’s edict to rebuild the temple (quoted in part in Ezra 1:2-4; this
content parallels the Cyrus Cylinder—Cyrus’s equivalent edict to the Babylonians)
The Register of Returnees (Ezra 2:1-62)
The Letter to Artaxerxes from Beyond the River (an official Persian period
territorial delineation; letter quoted in Ezra 4:10-16)
The Response of Artaxerxes (quoted in Ezra 4:17-22)
The Letter to Darius from Tattenai (quoted in Ezra 5:7-17)
The Edict of Cyrus (a longer quotation of his initial decree in Ezra 6:2-5)
The Response of Darius (quoted in Ezra 6:6-12)
The Letter of Artaxerxes (quoted at length in Ezra 7:12-26).

Numerous other letters, decrees and edicts from foreign and domestic
kings are referenced and quoted in other books throughout the Bible.
-

‘And I Saw …’ In many cases, it purports to relate eyewitness accounts.

Material concerning Saul and David, for example, was “written in the
words of Samuel,” the contemporary prophet (1 Chronicles 29:29).

Material concerning King Uzziah “did Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz,
write” during the early part of his contemporaneous tenure (2 Chronicles 26:22).
“Moses wrote” information contained within the Torah (Deuteronomy 31:9).

This type of “eyewitness” testimony is repeatedly cited and prefaced in
the books that contain it. Just about every book of the prophets is replete
with repetitions of the words “I saw.”

(Isaiah 1:1)(Jeremiah 1:1, 3)(Ezekiel 1:1–3)(Hosea 1:1)(Amos 1:1)
(Micah 1:1)(Zephaniah 1:1)Haggai 1:1)(Zechariah 1:1)

The Bible is one endless stream of “source citation” and chronological
anchoring, from eyewitnesses authors, or from other, non-canonical texts.
-

The Bible, the book is one endless citation of “where the author got his
information from” in a phrase used over 400 times throughout:

"Thus saith the Lord"". This particular “citation,” however, gets into the
realm of faith, which is unacceptable for scholarship. The Bible contains
history—just as it contains wisdom literature (i.e. Proverbs) and prophecy.
-

"Daniel wrote during the sixth century b.c.e., the chronological
period described in the text. Critics say the book was written
during the second century b.c.e., after many of the prophecies—
especially related to the Persian and Greek empires—had come to pass.

The historical events documented in the book of Daniel occurred.
On which side of those events was Daniel written? This book is
either powerful proof of divine revelation, or it is an outright fake.

How can we know which is true?

Can We Trust the Book of Daniel?

Was the book of Daniel written before or after the incredible events it claims to have prophesied?

armstronginstitute.org

-

Remarkable Linguistic ‘Coincidences’ in the Hebrew Bible
Proof of divine inspiration of the Scriptures?

Remarkable Linguistic 'Coincidences' in the Hebrew Bible

Proof of divine inspiration of the Scriptures?

armstronginstitute.org

 

[David Lamb]

Its possible to see something as profitable, but not as the pillar of your faith and its surely not required that profitable things must be literal, scientific or without errors.

We are called to believe in Christ, to live a clean life and to do good deeds. We are not called to push the literal reading of Genesis to public schools. Or to uncritically accept non-necessary religious traditions, for that matter.

But God in His Word says that all of it is given by His inspiration, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. I made no mention of what is taught in public (or as we call them here in the UK, state) schools. Nor did I mention religious traditions, only what God says in His Word.

 

[David Lamb]

He said "the context of scripture is within scripture itself".

Ok sure. Whatever you want to believe.

That's probably the most nonsensical statement that I've heard anyone say about the Bible in a while.

@Doug Brents

If it were really that simple, none of us would even be having this conversation.

If you have a statement in the Bible "there is water in the trunk", unless you know the traditional context, whether it's a mechanic working with car trunks or it's a man in the woods working with tree trunks, if you don't know that traditional context, then scripture becomes essentially meaningless because you can't differentiate one concept from another.

If scripture can means many things, then it essentially means nothing. And only the tradition of the text can illuminate the original meaning.

But it's not tradition that indicates that when the bible mentions the word "trunk", it doesn't mean the part of the car that we in the UK call the "boot" where luggage is placed. It's context. it was written at a time long before cars came on the scene. That's historical context, not tradition.

 

[Job 33:6]

But it's not tradition that indicates that when the bible mentions the word "trunk", it doesn't mean the part of the car that we in the UK call the "boot" where luggage is placed. It's context. it was written at a time long before cars came on the scene. That's historical context, not tradition.

Sure. In which case, i'd clarify that this historical context for Genesis aligns with tradition.

You'll never ever find a single historical writing, commentary, or piece or literature at any point in ancient history, describing Genesis and old testament cosmology as being anything other than an ancient cosmology.

The traditions of ancient Jews and the earliest members of the church, were rooted in and were in agreement on ancient cosmology in Genesis.

There is no evidence of a historical context or any evidence of a tradition that suggests anything otherwise. While there is overwhelming evidence that this is the true meaning of the text, given that this universally is what we find in all of the oldest of biblical sources.

Well, unless you found something like young earth traditions coming out of writings of James usher. But again, if the tradition is originating 2,000 plus years after the writing of Genesis, I wouldn't even consider that to be traditional. It's a much more modern view.

 

[trophy33]

But God in His Word says that all of it is given by His inspiration, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness. I made no mention of what is taught in public (or as we call them here in the UK, state) schools. Nor did I mention religious traditions, only what God says in His Word.

1. Paul is saying that, not God.

2. Useful/profitable for teaching in righteousness is something totally different from being useful for teaching the history of the world or something like that.

3. You are accepting religious traditions without mentioning it - for example your view of the book of Genesis or your view that everything written in the Bible is "God says" is a specific religious tradition.

 

[trophy33]

Your motive?

Just the simple principle that truth cannot contradict other truths (in this case natural world) is a good enough motive to study more about the book of Genesis, I think.

Very odd as a Christian for you to have such a strong opinion that the Bible is a mythological narrative....you provide no Biblical support to that opinion.

Its not odd, as its the mainstream view. Your view is actually odd, like from the medieval times.

 

[trophy33]

What approach did Jesus give us as an example in his many references to the Old Testament? What did he say about believing what Moses said. Was his approach to take a mythological viewpoint of the Old Testament or did he take a literal acceptance of the Old Testament. Did Jesus consider the Old Testament to be the Word of God? Would you say that your approach to the Old Testament is the same approach that Jesus took?

Select one question at a time. I will not exhaust myself explaining many concepts at once while you are not even interested in the answers.

 

[trophy33]

Job 28:28
And unto man he [God] said, Behold, the fear of the Lord,
that is wisdom; And to depart from evil is understanding.

How ancient is the Bible, anyway? Which is more correct:
traditional dating or revised, late scholarly dating?

The Antiquity of the Scriptures: The Writings

The Antiquity of the Scriptures: The Writings

How ancient is the Bible, anyway? Which is more correct: traditional dating or revised, late scholarly dating?

armstronginstitute.org

The Antiquity of the Scriptures: The Prophets

The Antiquity of the Scriptures: The Prophets

How ancient is the Bible, anyway? Which is more correct: traditional dating or revised, late scholarly dating?

armstronginstitute.org

The Antiquity of the Scriptures: The Torah

The Antiquity of the Scriptures: The Torah

How ancient is the Bible, anyway? Which is more correct: traditional dating or revised, late scholarly dating?

armstronginstitute.org

The Oracles or [utterances]of God
Romans 3:1-5, Acts 7:38, Hebrews 5:12, 1 Peter 4:11,

Can You Trust the Masoretic Text? We should. It’s the most
accurately copied ancient document in human history.

Can You Trust the Masoretic Text?

We should. It’s the most accurately copied ancient document in human history.

armstronginstitute.org

-
The Bible ‘Is Not History’—Because It Doesn’t Cite Sources?

The Bible ‘Is Not History’—Because It Doesn't Cite Sources?

So goes a recent claim. If only the biblical authors had remembered to cite their sources ... or did they?

armstronginstitute.org

IT is "one endless stream of “source citation” and chronological anchoring,
be it from eyewitnesses authors, or from other, non-canonical texts.

Some Types of sources cross-referenced in the Bible
(Numbers 21:14)(Joshua 10:13)(1 Kings 11:41)(1 Kings 14:19)(1 Kings 14:29)
(1 Chronicles 27:24)(1 Chronicles 29:29)(2 Chronicles 9:29)(2 Chronicles 12:15)
(2 Chronicles 13:22)(2 Chronicles 20:34)(2 Chronicles 24:27)(2 Chronicles 33:18)
(2 Chronicles 33:19)(Ezra 4:15)(Esther 2:23)(Esther 10:2).

Also hundreds of cross-references between individual books of the Bible.
the Book of the Generations of Adam (Genesis 5:1) the Book of the
Generations of the Heavens and the Earth (Genesis 2:4; Septuagint).

The book of Ezra, for example, is virtually one continuous string of
citations and lengthy quotations:

King Cyrus’s edict to rebuild the temple (quoted in part in Ezra 1:2-4; this
content parallels the Cyrus Cylinder—Cyrus’s equivalent edict to the Babylonians)
The Register of Returnees (Ezra 2:1-62)
The Letter to Artaxerxes from Beyond the River (an official Persian period
territorial delineation; letter quoted in Ezra 4:10-16)
The Response of Artaxerxes (quoted in Ezra 4:17-22)
The Letter to Darius from Tattenai (quoted in Ezra 5:7-17)
The Edict of Cyrus (a longer quotation of his initial decree in Ezra 6:2-5)
The Response of Darius (quoted in Ezra 6:6-12)
The Letter of Artaxerxes (quoted at length in Ezra 7:12-26).

Numerous other letters, decrees and edicts from foreign and domestic
kings are referenced and quoted in other books throughout the Bible.
-

‘And I Saw …’ In many cases, it purports to relate eyewitness accounts.

Material concerning Saul and David, for example, was “written in the
words of Samuel,” the contemporary prophet (1 Chronicles 29:29).

Material concerning King Uzziah “did Isaiah the prophet, the son of Amoz,
write” during the early part of his contemporaneous tenure (2 Chronicles 26:22).
“Moses wrote” information contained within the Torah (Deuteronomy 31:9).

This type of “eyewitness” testimony is repeatedly cited and prefaced in
the books that contain it. Just about every book of the prophets is replete
with repetitions of the words “I saw.”

(Isaiah 1:1)(Jeremiah 1:1, 3)(Ezekiel 1:1–3)(Hosea 1:1)(Amos 1:1)
(Micah 1:1)(Zephaniah 1:1)Haggai 1:1)(Zechariah 1:1)

The Bible is one endless stream of “source citation” and chronological
anchoring, from eyewitnesses authors, or from other, non-canonical texts.
-

The Bible, the book is one endless citation of “where the author got his
information from” in a phrase used over 400 times throughout:

"Thus saith the Lord"". This particular “citation,” however, gets into the
realm of faith, which is unacceptable for scholarship. The Bible contains
history—just as it contains wisdom literature (i.e. Proverbs) and prophecy.
-

"Daniel wrote during the sixth century b.c.e., the chronological
period described in the text. Critics say the book was written
during the second century b.c.e., after many of the prophecies—
especially related to the Persian and Greek empires—had come to pass.

The historical events documented in the book of Daniel occurred.
On which side of those events was Daniel written? This book is
either powerful proof of divine revelation, or it is an outright fake.

How can we know which is true?

Can We Trust the Book of Daniel?

Was the book of Daniel written before or after the incredible events it claims to have prophesied?

armstronginstitute.org

-

Remarkable Linguistic ‘Coincidences’ in the Hebrew Bible
Proof of divine inspiration of the Scriptures?

Remarkable Linguistic 'Coincidences' in the Hebrew Bible

Proof of divine inspiration of the Scriptures?

armstronginstitute.org

Text flooding. Tell me your claims and reasoning in one or two sentences.

 

[Semper-Fi]

Text flooding. Tell me your claims and reasoning in one or two sentences.

The Bible cannot have been the work of mere, mortal men. It must have been divinely inspired
by a God “[d]eclaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not
yet done; Saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, And all My pleasure will I do’”

 

[Job 33:6]

What was the traditionally understood meaning of Hos 11:1? "When Israel was a youth I loved him, And out of Egypt I called My son."
It was that the nation of Israel was in bondage and slavery in Egypt, and God rescued them, He called them, out of bondage into freedom through Moses. Yes? That was the "traditional" understanding of that passage. Yet when Matthew referred to that passage in Matt 2:15, who was he talking about? He says it was really a prophecy about Jesus, and that He would be called out of Egypt when He was a child. Traditional understanding is not always correct or complete. You are placing "tradition" above God's Word, but tradition is not truth.

When New Testament authors cite the Old Testament, they aren’t retelling Old Testament stories.

For instance, Matthew’s citation of Hosea isn’t saying, “This is what Hosea was describing.” Instead, Matthew uses Hosea for a prophetic purpose. However, this doesn’t change the original meaning of Hosea. We can’t retroactively insert “Jesus” into Hosea because Hosea wasn’t talking about Jesus. Hosea’s text is true and complete in what it intended to say, and it would be wrong to claim that it’s incorrect or incomplete just because Matthew uses it differently.

This same principle applies to Genesis. John’s mention of creation ex nihilo doesn’t mean Genesis, which reflects an ancient Israelite cosmology, is wrong or incomplete. Both texts are complete in their own contexts, and neither should be retroactively changed to align with the other.

To understand Matthew’s use of Hosea, we must start with Hosea’s original context and let it remain as it is. Hosea’s cultural and historical background is the original context for understanding the book, not Matthew’s later usage. Similarly, Genesis must be read within its own cultural framework, not reinterpreted through John’s perspective.

The Old Testament texts retain their integrity even when the New Testament authors cite them in unique or different ways. For example, if Hosea speaks of Israelites and Moses while Matthew speaks of Jesus, we must accept that these are two distinct narratives with different authors and contexts. Different stories.

Ultimately, respecting the original context of each text allows us to preserve the full meaning and richness of both the Old and New Testaments. Hosea is not changed by Matthew, just as Genesis is not changed by John. Each text stands complete in its own right.

Why does this matter? Because Genesis describes an ancient Israelite cosmology, and that is the historical context, and the original traditional approach to the text.

And citing the new testament does not change that reality. Citing a later tradition and a later historical context does not change the original tradition and the original historical context. Nor does citing a later tradition or context change the original.

And that doesn't mean that Mathew is wrong either. It just means that Mathew is telling a different story.

In this topic, we are talking about Genesis. So that's where we have to begin. With the original text, the original tradition, the original historical context etc.

we don't start a study of Genesis by opening up to Hebrews 11 or John 1. If you want to do a study on Genesis, you have to start with Genesis.

 

[Platte]

Select one question at a time. I will not exhaust myself explaining many concepts at once while you are not even interested in the answers.

Ok one concept

“Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭12‬:‭19‬

This is from Deuteronomy. Why is Moses attributed as the writer if he is not the writer?

 

[David Lamb]

1. Paul is saying that, not God.

2. Useful/profitable for teaching in righteousness is something totally different from being useful for teaching the history of the world or something like that.

3. You are accepting religious traditions without mentioning it - for example your view of the book of Genesis or your view that everything written in the Bible is "God says" is a specific religious tradition.

That is where you and I differ then. I believe that 2 Timothy is part of the Word of God. Having a right idea of God being the Creator is part of the teaching. And no, it is not "specific religious tradition"; it is belief in God's Word.

 

[Platte]

That is where you and I differ then. I believe that 2 Timothy is part of the Word of God. Having a right idea of God being the Creator is part of the teaching. And no, it is not "specific religious tradition"; it is belief in God's Word.

Stating and believing that The Bible is the inspired Word of God is a common tenant of the Christian Faith. Nothing new about that. Knowing that this is a Christian site the lack of respect to that belief is very shocking to me.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I was watching an old movie about Galileo staring Topol

Of course we all know that he had problems with the Catholic Church sharing his observations and theories. I thought it was interesting that one of the augments for him to keep silent was that If he is right and the Church is wrong about the movements of the earth and sun, then Genesis is wrong and God is wrong and we have no certainty to give stability to our lives. Perhaps some still think that way.

He response was, "Am I to lie to them?"

 

[trophy33]

Ok one concept

“Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭12‬:‭19‬

This is from Deuteronomy. Why is Moses attributed as the writer if he is not the writer?

Tradition. The five books of Moses were traditionally ascribed to Moses as an author.

However, technically, all these books developed into their current forms (there are multiple versions) through time.

Mosaic authorship - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[trophy33]

That is where you and I differ then. I believe that 2 Timothy is part of the Word of God. Having a right idea of God being the Creator is part of the teaching. And no, it is not "specific religious tradition"; it is belief in God's Word.

Such view of the Bible is an extreme one. Bible was not dictated by God. The term "the words of God" means something different.

This view is also unsustainable when studying the Bible (and about the Bible). It clashes with many things and creates obvious issues (both external - like natural and historical sciences - and internal - like textual problems).

 

[Semper-Fi]

Tradition. The five books of Moses were traditionally ascribed to Moses as an author.

However, technically, all these books developed into their current forms (there are multiple versions) through time.

The same authors writing the famous commandment
“Thou shalt not bear false witness” (Exodus 20:16; Deu 5:20)
would have then “borne false witness” by writing repeatedly
that Moses wrote the Torah (e.g. Exodus 17:14; Numbers 33:2;
Deuteronomy 31:9).

And it would throw under the bus the rest of the biblical
books and authors that say likewise (e.g. Joshua, Judges,
Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, Malachi).

Luke 18:8 (KJV)
I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless
when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?

I have faith the Hebrew Bible is the Sure Word of God.

 

[trophy33]

I have faith the Hebrew Bible is the Sure Word of God.

You can have any faith. But if we are talking about what is real and how things happened, then we must stick to facts. Schools are not supposed to teach religion, but factual history etc.

 

[Semper-Fi]

Schools are not supposed to teach religion, but factual history etc.

The bible is chock full of factual history, a shame you believe it is false.

 

[trophy33]

The bible is chock full of factual history, a shame you believe it is false.

Bible is a library of various books with various genres, written in various times. There is no shame in being educated or in accepting reality.