So can the Genesis be infallible and inerrant history?

CabVet said:

Yet, you cannot prove that he does not exist.

Click to expand...

While I do believe the Egyptian, Greek and Roman [deities]* existed at one time, as well as Leprechauns, I draw the line at comic books.

* [fallen angels]

AV1611VET said:

Well, for simplicity's sake ... let's just say "the fourth day."

Click to expand...

Actually, January 4, 4004 BC was a Tuesday :

Julian Day and Date Time Calculator

Davian said:

Click to expand...

There ya go! unexpected decelaration!

AV1611VET said:

No.

If I gave you a one-dollar bill, two-dollar bill, three-dollar bill, etc., and told you to separate these bills into two piles: LEGAL TENDER and NON-LEGAL TENDER, could you do it?

Click to expand...

A Bible is not money and this is an honest question. What gave Martin Luther the authority to remove entire books from a Bible that was accepted for 1,600+ years? Especially when verses like this are there:

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

I am sure the above was there in the 1,600s.

CabVet said:

A Bible is not money and this is an honest question. What gave Martin Luther the authority to remove entire books from a Bible that was accepted for 1,600+ years?

Click to expand...

God did.

Feature creep was setting in, and God removed it.

rjw said:

Well no, based on my experiences with many creationists across several different forums.

Two concepts are linked which show why Genesis is not necessarily the infallible and inerrant word of God:-

1) What the Bible claims for itself, and

2) The fruit many devout believers bear while under infallible guidance.

Take a look at the verses (and argument) presented at this link:-

Inspiration of the Bible: 
Is the Bible Infallible, Inerrant, and Verbally Inspired?

The claim that these verses show inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible generally, and Genesis specifically, unravels when you consider two things:-

1) Humans wrote those words, and

2) At best the humans who wrote them claimed to have, or actually did have an intimate relationship with God and to be guided by God.

However, many forum creationists claim exactly these kinds of things:-

1) An intimate relationship with God,

2) Guidance the the Holy Spirit, the omnipotent source of pure truth and justice,

- and it is often seen, on examining the exchanges in these various forums that despite having such impeccable and unimpeachable guidance, creationists:-

1) Often make demonstrable mistakes,

2) Often write silly things, and

3) At times even lie.


If given this kind of relationship with God, forum creationists do no better, than mistakes, silly things , even lies, then why should they, and anyone else expect that writers of the Old and New Testaments did any better?

A lot of their writing may have been factual and accurate recording but a lot of it may well be mistaken, silly, and perhaps even lie.

Those writers, while supposedly having omnipotent and infallible guidance are realistically, no different to forum creationists, and look at what forum creationists achieve while under the same guidance.

Hence we have no reason to think that Genesis is the infallible and inerrant word of God. Even if God exists and guided the writing of the Bible's texts, it may well contain mistakes, and silly ideas.

Click to expand...

Prophets in the Bible call out sinners for lying, fornicating, making false idols, bearing false witness, coveting, adultery, and keep right on going...

I am inferring that 'silliness' means 'superstitious practices' and such? If so, let's cut to the heart of the Bible, to God's Desire for His Creation, and to His Creation--just one:

When I humble myself; when I pray; when I take nothing for granted; when I go to my Creator before anyone or anything else; when I use the 'rational' part of my brain for 'good' (prudently), and have enough life experience (sinning, repenting, otherwise mucking it up and coming back to my goal),

When I read the Bible, I come to it not as I come to a history book, most of which are filled with mistakes; with lies; with 'trendy idea lines', i.e. yesterday's superstition...,

rather, I come to it looking for how did people before me try to know God; how did they defy God; what happened when they lived in defiance. What does the Old Covenant reveal; what does The New Covenant reveal?

I also look at how did people who came before me--the few who had this as their goal--succeed in knowing God; obey God; and what happened when they lived as closely to what He told them to do as possible...

I come with 'all' of me: My intellect; education--structured and unstructured; my temperament; my family background; my heritage; my mental disorder (and order), and every other kind of human quality including my limitations.

And I come to... with God's Grace.

***

And I see 'books' joined in history to serve various purposes.

I see God working through those who did evil 'for good'.

I see 'a stiff-necked people' not very different than today's people:

Living near an animal level (for our bellies, loins, reputation, self-image...), calling lust love, saying 'My God' when there is only God (Origin)... whereas there now seems to be a lot of gods people call God and then fight over 'their gods' superiority.

***

The Bible is history, geneologies, prose poems, hymns, sermons, various points of view (Sarai and Abram--read closely and you'll find three descriptions with obvious breaks and conflicts regarding how each/both responded about having a child late in life..., and the people who wrote what is now called the Bible spanned so many hundreds of years in which so many cultures mixed with, fought, merged, lived up against other cultures...

And The Bible was written by all men... with enough clout to take the time to either write the passages themselves or have scribes do it for them--and so many others added to what was there--not usually to 'lie' but to say, in effect, 'I think this is a better way to understand God in history (not history with a God and gods).

***

As for using 'reportage' as the only valid definition of 'Truth', do I read, for instance, a gorgeous work of fiction like, Faulkner's Light in August and expect it to 'give me just the facts, laid out exactly as the events happened--no color, no various points of view, no conflict, no poetry? (How dead that would be--hardly 'art', and with the Bible, hardly inspired (really reflect on the term 'inspired') by God, the Creator of Everything!

Conversely, do I expect, because it 'falls under the category' of 'fiction' that no character in Light in August is true-to-life, and that nothing Mr. Faulkner wrote about actually happened, and further, none of the characters are 'true to life', and therefore have nothing to teach me?

That would not hold my interest--and it certainly wouldn't hold anyone else's: we read looking precisely for where the 'character' resembles us. And if he doesn't, there had better be a 'struggle' between the part that does and does not resemble us as humans, or we will not give it a read, period.

***

I am open to being taught; I am open to the various ways we process the truth, use and need allegory (similies, metaphors, didactics, sermons) and because I do believe in God; and LOVE, and Eternity, I don't quibble over 'this person believes the Bible thus' and 'that person believes the Bible so'.

I take it to God:

My questions; my concerns; my confusion; my sins; my 'silliness'; everything...

It makes no sense for me to engage in 'debate' with fellow creatures when my Creator told me 'to love my neighbor as myself' and that was after telling me to 'Love God with all I am; all that makes up being alive'--

I am to give my entire life to God.

Start at the TOP.

God exists.

After oral history came written history.

Most history is biased.

Obeying God is simple.

Giving up sin is arduous.

Focus on ranking what needs doing in accordance of importance:

God and good come first.

After that, ask how can I follow God and do good?

Go to the source.

He'll help you know what to read; what to let alone; what you'll need and He'll supply later on.

What He won't do?

God is not responsible for the part that pits one person against another person for ego's sake.

He is not responsible for the repeated dead-end arguments that go something like,

'I am right because I believe in evolution and no God'
'No, I am right because I believe the Bible is literal and I don't see evolution in there, so it must not exist.'

'No, I believe in evolution AND in God, and I can show you--after spending months, maybe longer, on exactly how it is SO obvious--and then feel so dejected when no one much seems to care...'

***

I have an opinion about evolution, sure.

I could waste a lot of time writing about it, and 'debating it' and being ignored if I made a good point (by some), and getting Repped if I made a great shot at someone else (by a few)...

And I'd be way off the mark: Sinning.

Because Jesus told me what to do, simply stuff, hard to let go of ego-driven rhetoric, and yet, I have to...

I have to if I want 'the peace that surpasses all understanding.'

And so, on that note:

Peace to us all in Christ Jesus

(time for me to play some encouraging 'silly' games with others)

~ Carolyn

P.S. I have a torn IT-Band and am groggy from medications, so please forgive me any odd or hard-to-follow passages; I'm sure you all can live without my 'creature-wisdom'.

AV1611VET said:

God did.

Feature creep was setting in, and God removed it.

Click to expand...

And what makes you think that Martin Luther was speaking for God and John Smith was not?

CabVet said:

And what makes you think that Martin Luther was speaking for God and John Smith was not?

Click to expand...

I didn't say Martin Luther was speaking for God.

In fact, if I say what I want to say about Mr. Luther, I would be moderated.

(But not because of foul language; I don't do that.)

In any event, it's King James' men I'm partial to.

God had the final say through them.

AV1611VET said:

In any event, it's King James' men I'm partial to.

God had the final say through them.

Click to expand...

Why? Why did they remove the books that were there since the resurrection of Jesus? Why do you accept what they did and not what John Smith did?

AV1611VET said:

I didn't say Martin Luther was speaking for God.

In fact, if I say what I want to say about Mr. Luther, I would be moderated.

(But not because of foul language; I don't do that.)

In any event, it's King James' men I'm partial to.

God had the final say through them.

Click to expand...

You sure He didn't have the "final say" through you? You're the one who says He's got nothing more to say.

CabVet said:

Why? Why did they remove the books that were there since the resurrection of Jesus? Why do you accept what they did and not what John Smith did?

Click to expand...

Welcome to the world of politics and the subjugation policies of the power hungry and greedy.

TLK Valentine said:

You sure He didn't have the "final say" through you?

Click to expand...

I don't really remember him asking me for my input.

AV1611VET said:

I don't really remember him asking me for my input.

Click to expand...

Few people ever do -- that's never stopped you before.

You said that God has His "final say" through King James' crew -- since He never told you that He has nothing more to say, how can you make such a statement?

CabVet said:

Why? Why did they remove the books that were there since the resurrection of Jesus? Why do you accept what they did and not what John Smith did?

Click to expand...

It was a marketing decision.

Just as it was, to add the story of the women taken into adultery (about 1000 years after Jesus died) into the NT. No where for centuries, is that story seen in any of the oldest copies of the NT. They made a marketing decision to make up a story, that painted a picture of Jesus they wanted to distribute to everyone.

There are other examples of changes (additions, deletions) from the oldest and most reliable copies of the NT.

EternalDragon said:

That is incorrect. I am not sure what teaching you are listening to.

If what you say is true then there would be no need for a savior. Just start with Genesis. God showed the animals to Adam to see what he would name them. He told Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree. They both could have chosen not to eat.

Lets take that out then. They have kids, and their kids have kids....and someone, somewhere along the line would have chosen to eat and we are right back to the same outcome. Only Genesis would have been slightly different.

Click to expand...

It isn't incorrect. It's just basic logic--unless you can point to how it is illogical. And it doesn't matter WHO started the poor decisions. God could have created any of an infinite amount of universes...even one where every single person made the right choice. But he didn't. He specifically chose to make a universe where adam and eve fell. All part of his sadistic plan to punish those who can't help but to choose what he created them to choose.

And someone mentioned that thing about if God revealed himself to everyone, it would take away free will. Setting aside the fact that I showed you how free will given by an omniscient, omnipotent creator is illogical, this argument doesn't hold water, either. Satan supposedly had free will despite the fact that he was in presence of God, and chose to rebel.

And you're right, there is no need for a savior, under my scenario, because it doesn't stinking matter. You're going to go to heaven or hell depending on what God chose for you, not what you choose yourself...based on the attributes commonly given to God by most Christians.

Doveaman said:

I don't follow your logic.

Just because God knows the creation's fate doesn't mean He preordained it.

Click to expand...

It absolutely does, IF he is the omnipotent, omniscient CREATOR. He is not just an observer. He molded the world exactly as he wanted it. We can't do a thing to change it, and that means we only have one choice, for every single choice we make--the one that God knew we would make, because he created the world in which we make a specific choice, as opposed to another.

46AND2 said:

It isn't incorrect. It's just basic logic--unless you can point to how it is illogical. And it doesn't matter WHO started the poor decisions. God could have created any of an infinite amount of universes...even one where every single person made the right choice. But he didn't. He specifically chose to make a universe where adam and eve fell. All part of his sadistic plan to punish those who can't help but to choose what he created them to choose.

And someone mentioned that thing about if God revealed himself to everyone, it would take away free will. Setting aside the fact that I showed you how free will given by an omniscient, omnipotent creator is illogical, this argument doesn't hold water, either. Satan supposedly had free will despite the fact that he was in presence of God, and chose to rebel.

And you're right, there is no need for a savior, under my scenario, because it doesn't stinking matter. You're going to go to heaven or hell depending on what God chose for you, not what you choose yourself...based on the attributes commonly given to God by most Christians.

Click to expand...

That is completely backwards to what the Bible teaches. If God made a universe like you describe it would not contain free will. It would be a slave universe. We would not even need brains. Just a straw body and some strings.

The bible states that everyone is bound for hell. That salvation is freely given by God to those that ask and repent of their sins.

All I can say is that if you are truly sincere about wanting to learn about the God of the bible, that you read that bible.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

46AND2 said:

It absolutely does, IF he is the omnipotent, omniscient CREATOR. He is not just an observer. He molded the world exactly as he wanted it. We can't do a thing to change it, and that means we only have one choice, for every single choice we make--the one that God knew we would make, because he created the world in which we make a specific choice, as opposed to another.

Click to expand...

This is just some advice. Read the bible.

You have the free choice to make any choice you want to in the world created by God. Why don't you just come out and say you don't want to believe in the God of the bible and stop beating around the bush with illogical scenarios and making up things that the Bible does not teach?

EternalDragon said:

That is completely backwards to what the Bible teaches.

Click to expand...

You sure about that? Let's see, attributes I am assigning God in my scenario:

1. Omniscient. Check, in the Bible.
2. Omnipotent. Check, in the Bible.
3. Creator of the Universe. Check, in the Bible.

That's it. It's all there.

What I'm saying is...what the Bible teaches about God, is illogical. It makes no sense.

If God made a universe like you describe it would not contain free will. It would be a slave universe. We would not even need brains. Just a straw body and some strings.

Click to expand...

Yet the Bible teaches omniscience, omnipotence, and creation of the universe. I guess we are all just marionettes.

The bible states that everyone is bound for hell. That salvation is freely given by God to those that ask and repent of their sins.

All I can say is that if you are truly sincere about wanting to learn about the God of the bible, that you read that bible.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:

Click to expand...

You still have not answered my key question: Yes or no: Can we make a choice that surprises God?

EternalDragon said:

This is just some advice. Read the bible.

Click to expand...

Yes, yes, advice which if not followed will condemn you to an eternity in hell. Some "advice" this one...