What does it mean to be inspired?

[depthdeception]

I guess Peter, John the Baptist, Isaiah, Moses, don't count. Also, I guess the angels to whom God spoke through as the angels spoke, the LORD says, "XXXX". I guess when the servents of God that are human likewise said the same....all don't count. We are lead of the Spirit:
Gal 5:
16So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature.

It is by the Holy Spirit who testifies through us.

I don't understand your point. My point was that the Scriptures are not the self-revelation of GOd. I have no idea what your response has to do with that.

 

[dvd_holc]

I don't understand your point. My point was that the Scriptures are not the self-revelation of GOd. I have no idea what your response has to do with that.

if the Scriptures are not self-revelations from me then they are God's which I would say that the Bible is 100% true.

 

[£amb]

6 literal days of creation...not all animals/man lived on Earth at the same time...the universe isn't 6 or 7 thousand years old. I don't know these things as fact, but the overwhelming scientific evidence shows the earth to be over 4 billion years old and that we weren't the first in our lineage. I'm not debating...I just want to know why there is disagreement. Again, if the Bible authors were inspired, meaning that the Bible would be without error, then why is it in error?

I'm just trying to explore possible answers.

To be honest, I don't think I have an answer for that. Maybe one day we'll find out that we were the ones who were wrong and the scriptures were right. Some things we don't have all the answers for and as a believer, I'll leave it in God's hands.

 

[filly]

To be honest, I don't think I have an answer for that. Maybe one day we'll find out that we were the ones who were wrong and the scriptures were right. Some things we don't have all the answers for and as a believer, I'll leave it in God's hands.

So, when you say "as a believer," what are you believing in? How do you overlook the apparent error in the story of creation and not have that affect your faith? This is what I'm trying to accomplish. I want to subscribe to a plausible explanation for why the creation account was written the way it was.

 

[£amb]

So, when you say "as a believer," what are you believing in? How do you overlook the apparent error in the story of creation and not have that affect your faith? This is what I'm trying to accomplish. I want to subscribe to a plausible explanation for why the creation account was written the way it was.

When I say "believer", I am referring to someone who is a believer of God and Jesus.
The account of the creation has no affect on my faith in God. I came to my belief in God for other reasons than that. Like I said, there are many things that I do not understand, but I will no way hold them against God and to demand that He give me all the answers as to "why". I believe there will be a day for when we will understand everything and why it was done the way it was.
When you say error, as to what error are you referring to? Even if someone gave a good enough answer, would it change your feelings on this? If you don't get a good enough answer, will it affect your belief in God?

£amb

 

[California Tim]

6 literal days of creation...not all animals/man lived on Earth at the same time...the universe isn't 6 or 7 thousand years old. I don't know these things as fact, but the overwhelming scientific evidence shows the earth to be over 4 billion years old and that we weren't the first in our lineage. I'm not debating...I just want to know why there is disagreement. Again, if the Bible authors were inspired, meaning that the Bible would be without error, then why is it in error?

I'm just trying to explore possible answers.

The simple answer is one side or the other is wrong. That is why there remains an unresolved debate within the community on the age of creation. Personally I am not impressed by the "overwhelming evidence" presented largely on behalf of humanistic scientists who (whether they like to admit it or not) are not quite as objective as they claim to be. First of all, if one is going to base all conjecture on the absense of a supernatural (outside the boundaries of natural law) influence on creation, then there is no way their calculations can accurately represent the reality that we have a Creator - if He used any supernatural forces in creating.

The substance of all humanistic science is based on the belief that all we see now represents the way everything has always been (aka: "conformity"). In otherwords, it stands to reason that if it takes 2 million years for a continent to drift 10 miles at the rate we see it move today, then using this formula we can surmize that a continent that moved 1000 miles is at least 200,000,000 years old. Sounds pretty nifty and rather indisputable - unless you consider that at one time the continent might have moved 900 of those miles in a 40 day period under enormous pressure and great depths of water during a worldwide flood as recently as several thousand years ago. So if one is going to claim there is "indisputable" or "overwhelming" evidence for the supposed old age of the earth, that person has using not challenged the issue of conformity within the scientific community and accepts everything at face value based mostly on the presumption that everything in creation can be proven "naturally" without supernatural influence having played a role. To me that is simple "junk science" and hardly indisputable.

Thus it is quite possible that the Bible can be taken at face value - often when humanistic science is largely at odds with what it claims is true. There is no need to water it down, apologize for it, nor cower away from challenges. God's word is either all true, or not worthy of basing an eternal hope on, for there would be no reliable way to pick and choose which parts were true (accurate) from those that were false, including the issue of the Savior Himself if any part of it were false. I am not persuaded to doubt my faith when science calls it to the test, where the authenticity of the Biblical accounts - including that of creation - is questioned by a community that has a track record of denying the role of the supernatural, has been proven wrong time after time, is constantly changing and revising estimates as new information is discovered and refuses to consider God as much a part of science as creation itself.

 

[filly]

When you say error, as to what error are you referring to? Even if someone gave a good enough answer, would it change your feelings on this? If you don't get a good enough answer, will it affect your belief in God?

See post #23. If I don't have a good enough answer, I think my belief in God will suffer. I will repeat...if the Bible is true, accurate, without error, etc., then why are there the discrepancies I briefly listed in post #23?

 

[filly]

The simple answer is one side or the other is wrong. That is why there remains an unresolved debate within the community on the age of creation. Personally I am not impressed by the "overwhelming evidence" presented largely on behalf of humanistic scientists who (whether they like to admit it or not) are not quite as objective as they claim to be. First of all, if one is going to base all conjecture on the absense of a supernatural (outside the boundaries of natural law) influence on creation, then there is no way their calculations can accurately represent the reality that we have a Creator - if He used any supernatural forces in creating.

The substance of all humanistic science is based on the belief that all we see now represents the way everything has always been (aka: "conformity"). In otherwords, it stands to reason that if it takes 2 million years for a continent to drift 10 miles at the rate we see it move today, then using this formula we can surmize that a continent that moved 1000 miles is at least 200,000,000 years old. Sounds pretty nifty and rather indisputable - unless you consider that at one time the continent might have moved 900 of those miles in a 40 day period under enormous pressure and great depths of water during a worldwide flood as recently as several thousand years ago. So if one is going to claim there is "indisputable" or "overwhelming" evidence for the supposed old age of the earth, that person has using not challenged the issue of conformity within the scientific community and accepts everything at face value based mostly on the presumption that everything in creation can be proven "naturally" without supernatural influence having played a role. To me that is simple "junk science" and hardly indisputable.

Thus it is quite possible that the Bible can be taken at face value - often when humanistic science is largely at odds with what it claims is true. There is no need to water it down, apologize for it, nor cower away from challenges. God's word is either all true, or not worthy of basing an eternal hope on, for there would be no reliable way to pick and choose which parts were true (accurate) from those that were false, including the issue of the Savior Himself if any part of it were false. I am not persuaded to doubt my faith when science calls it to the test, where the authenticity of the Biblical accounts - including that of creation - is questioned by a community that has a track record of denying the role of the supernatural, has been proven wrong time after time, is constantly changing and revising estimates as new information is discovered and refuses to consider God as much a part of science as creation itself.

So, CT, I take it that you believe in a literal, 6-day creation, and that the universe is a few thousand years old?

 

[California Tim]

So, CT, I take it that you believe in a literal, 6-day creation, and that the universe is a few thousand years old?

I do. And my belief is anchored in the presentation of the historical narrative style of the creation account, and the reference to it, the flood and a literal man named Adam later in the Bible by Christ and Paul. I further find that the fact that geneologies listed early in Genesis effectively refute any notion that evolution in any way resulted in the development of mankind. It presents a literal man named Adam, who had no mother or father as the first of all humans created directly by God. Finally, I find a compelling argument in the very first chapter of Genesis dismissing the possiblity of unique species having a common ancestor. By the use of the phrases "after their kind" or "after his kind" over and over again when describing the method of populating the earth by various species, God has dismissed the possiblity of speciation resulting in what we have today.

Interestingly this concept is offered long before the idea ever was conceived by Darwin that all life originated from a common ancestor. One is compelled to ask "why?". Why did God think to address that issue in the very first chapter of His book when it was not to be challenged for centuries? I doubt it is any coincidence, and it is directly applicable to OUR age, when humanistic science has continually attempted to undermine our faith by questioning the reliablity and accuracy of the the very source of our faith- the Bible. This they do by calling into question the very first scientific event in history - creation.

If you will take a step back from this issue momentarily and contemplate this passage, I believe you will begin to comprehend where the REAL battle is being waged - one for the very soul of mankind:

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. (Ephesians 6:12)​

If you will consider that this war is being fought whether you want to participate or not, that by default, one way or the other you are involved - then you begin to realize the importance of issues like these calling into question the reliability of the Bible. This has become one of the main battlegrounds for Satan in order to effectively neutralize our primary weapon - Faith. If he can undermine our faith in God's main record to us (the Bible), then we become powerless - useless in the spiritual warfare taking place all around us.

This issue, questioning creation, age of the earth etc - begins to undermine the very foundation of the same book we must rely upon for faith in the Savior Christ. If we can be persuaded to doubt in one area, it is a relatively small step to deny the authenticity of virtually every area of significance in the Bible, be it creation, homosexuality, hell, heaven, Christ's sacrifice, resurrection, or our hopelessness apart from Him, even the existence of God Himself.

The question asked in this thread, reflects that doubt. It speculates that God- creator of all, who sent His only Son to die for us, who has power over the elements, and is not even bound by time itself, is on the other hand, either incapable or unwilling to preserve His message intact for all ages through a written account. This doubt is based primarily on the hearty denial by the world that God cares enough about us to preserve His word or that he wants us to know His ways. The fact that humans were the instruments of His transmission to paper seems to create further speculation that God could not control contamination of His message by the personal bias or culture of the author. It doesn't matter to many here that the Bible has already withstood endless challenges, and often when mocked as fantasy (ie walls of Jehicho), it has invariably proven the folly of the scoffers when archaeology later reveals everything happened just as written. Today, scientists mock the idea that some god out there supernaturally created us relatively recently. I have no fear that this, in time, too will soon reveal their folly, not mine. It is the sign of our time I am afraid, and will probably lead to the fulfillment of the prophecy concerning the end time's massive "falling away" from the faith by those close to - but not quite convinced of the need for salvation yet. Time will tell.

 

[£amb]

See post #23. If I don't have a good enough answer, I think my belief in God will suffer. I will repeat...if the Bible is true, accurate, without error, etc., then why are there the discrepancies I briefly listed in post #23?

Then I may not be the one to give you a good enough answer. Maybe someone else who has more wisdom in this can guide you into the knowledge you desire. I pray that the faith you seek doesn't rest solely in the book of Genesis.

 

[depthdeception]

if the Scriptures are not self-revelations from me then they are God's which I would say that the Bible is 100% true.

I do not see in what way this conclusion is necessary or even related to my previous posts.

 

[dvd_holc]

I do not see in what way this conclusion is necessary or even related to my previous posts.

ok...then I walk away...