So can the Genesis be infallible and inerrant history?

[AV1611VET]

Faith.

... is the Victory.

[youtube]zdAo-qiGG8g[/youtube]

 

[EternalDragon]

That humans write with pens, was correct.

Beyond that, you are correct - all assertion.

Not personal assertion though. The Bible itself (the writers) asserts it.

So basically, right now, you are asserting that those assertions are wrong. The writers are basing their assertions on personal experiences. You are basing your assertions on nothing but your personal opinion.

 

[rjw]

Not personal assertion though. The Bible itself (the writers) asserts it.

So basically, right now, you are asserting that those assertions are wrong. The writers are basing their assertions on personal experiences. You are basing your assertions on nothing but your personal opinion.

Well again, given that humans who claim to have an intimate relationship with God and to be guided by him, often write mistaken things, silly things and even lie, then there is no reason to accept the assertions written in the Bible as infallible truth.

If creationists cannot do better than mistake and silly things while under such impeccable guidance, why do you think that the writers of the Bible could do any better?

If God could use them to write perfectly, then why can't he use you folk?

 

[bhsmte]

Well again, given that humans who claim to have an intimate relationship with God and to be guided by him, often write mistaken things, silly things and even lie, then there is no reason to accept the assertions written in the Bible as infallible truth.

If creationists cannot do better than mistake and silly things while under such impeccable guidance, why do you think that the writers of the Bible could do any better?

Well, there is a reason for many to accept the assertions written in the bible as infallible truth.

That would be; when someone has committed so much of their life to believing it and they are in so deep, that their psychological makeup won't allow them to see it any other way.

 

[rjw]

Well, there is a reason for many to accept the assertions written in the bible as infallible truth.

That would be; when someone has committed so much of their life to believing it and they are in so deep, that their psychological makeup won't allow them to see it any other way.

I think that plays a large part, for many creationists at least.

Given their own behaviour, while claiming such impeccable, and unimpeachable guidance and such an intimate relationship with God, then maybe they should rethink their own assertions that the Bible is an infallible and inerrant book - because its authors were guided by God.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

A good 'kitchen table' test would be to line up the great works of literature, science, philosophy, art, etc., down through the ages, including the bible, and ask the question: "Which of these works would man, absent an outside force or influence, never have written?"

 

[bhsmte]

A good 'kitchen table' test would be to line up the great works of literature, science, art, etc., down through the ages, including the bible, and ask the question: "Which of these works would man, alone, never have written?"

My answer would be; none

 

[rjw]

A good 'kitchen table' test would be to line up the great works of literature, science, art, etc., down through the ages, including the bible, and ask the question: "Which of these works would man, alone, never have written?"

All of them look to me as if man would have written them - alone.

For example, the Song of Solomon in the Bible expresses so much about love, and lust - that it comes across as very human.

On the other hand, the works of Shakespeare seem almost "divine" at times. Nevertheless, what makes you think that Shakespeare must have had extra help?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

My answer would be; none

Read my (edited) post again.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

All of them look to me as if man would have written them - alone.

For example, the Song of Solomon in the Bible expresses so much about love, and lust - that it comes across as very human.

On the other hand, the works of Shakespeare seem almost "divine" at times. Nevertheless, what makes you think that Shakespeare must have had extra help?

The question is why would man produce a work that so soundly condemns himself? (I don't know what Shakespeare's 'inspiration' was).

 

[bhsmte]

Read my (edited) post again.

Well, many of the authors of the bible are unknown or anonymous and the outside source of influence from actual people putting pen to paper, would have been the powers at be that wanted to tell a certain story for a specific reason, to control people.

The OT is filled with wrath and killing (hence the intimidation to get people's attention). Then you have the NT, that has a completely different tone, which is the carrot extended of eternal life to get people to go along and follow the rules.

If the bible was inspired by an all powerful God, why would he need to change his story so much from the OT to the NT? Did God change his mind, from an eye for an eye to forgiveness? Why would someone like God need to do that?

To me, the powers at be realized, they may have overstepped their bounds a bit in the OT and needed to tone it down a bit, to get more people to feel good about things.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, there is a reason for many to accept the assertions written in the bible as infallible truth.

That would be; when someone has committed so much of their life to believing it and they are in so deep, that their psychological makeup won't allow them to see it any other way.

In other words their demon won't allow it (Not everyone that says "Lord, Lord.....").

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Well, many of the authors of the bible are unknown or anonymous and the outside source of influence from actual people putting pen to paper, would have been the powers at be that wanted to tell a certain story for a specific reason, to control people.

The OT is filled with wrath and killing (hence the intimidation to get people's attention). Then you have the NT, that has a completely different tone, which is the carrot extended of eternal life to get people to go along and follow the rules.

If the bible was inspired by an all powerful God, why would he need to change his story so much from the OT to the NT? Did God change his mind, from an eye for an eye to forgiveness? Why would someone like God need to do that?

To me, the powers at be realized, they may have overstepped their bounds a bit in the OT and needed to tone it down a bit, to get more people to feel good about things.

OT was then, NT is now. When I was in the army basic training only lasted eight weeks, then I went on to specialized training.

 

[bhsmte]

In other words their demon won't allow it (Not everyone that says "Lord, Lord.....").

Don't believe in demons, I call it, psychology.

 

[bhsmte]

OT was then, NT is now. When I was in the army basic training only lasted eight weeks, then I went on to specialized training.

I wouldn't consider that a good analogy for a book many consider inspired by God.

Do you then discount the OT? The NT says Jesus says the OT should be followed.

 

[rjw]

The question is why would man produce a work that so soundly condemns himself? (I don't know what Shakespeare's 'inspiration' was).

Humans often write works that condemn humans.

Besides, that the Bible often condemns humans does not mean that it must therefore be infallible.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I wouldn't consider that a good analogy for a book many consider inspired by God.

The OT is basic training for Christianity.

Do you then discount the OT? The NT says Jesus says the OT should be followed.

The OT ordinances would be kept by Israel until the prophecied destruction of the Levitical priesthood, the temple, and, the scattering of the Jews, as foretold by Jesus himself. This effectively ended the Old Covenant. Paul was to officiate the funeral of the OT, which droned on for some years, kept alive by some surviving Jews (it's actually alive today in modern conservative Judaism. Fragments are also evident in some Christian worship).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Humans often write works that condemn humans.

I was referring to the great works.

 

[bhsmte]

The OT is basic training for Christianity.



The OT ordinances would be kept by Israel until the prophecied destruction of the Levitical priesthood, the temple, and, the scattering of the Jews, as foretold by Jesus himself. This effectively ended the Old Covenant. Paul was to officiate the funeral of the OT, which droned on for some years, kept alive by some surviving Jews (it's actually alive today in modern conservative Judaism. Fragments are also evident in some Christian worship).

Basic training? If that is basic training for christianity, I will just say; Wow!

But why did the training change so much from the OT to the NT? If inspired by God, why do the themes contradict each other so much?

Doesn't sound divinely inspired to me, just a bunch of people writing stuff down trying to meet an agenda.

 

[Strathos]

Funny how the Bible never changes, even though it was written by sinners.



Funny how science is always changing and scientists (unlike the religious folk) constantly admit they are wrong.

Because there are no religious scientists?