Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

Loudmouth · Sep 30, 2013

frogman2x said:
Most secular historians are pretty good, but the liberal Biblical historians are so biased their works is pathetic. If you doubt what I say, take a look at the "Jesus Seminar." They concluded that only 18% of what the Bible says Jesus said, Jesus actually said and they did not offer one shread of evidence.

We've heard it all before:

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

Those darned liberal biblical scholars used to be the ones who dared to contradict the Bible by proclaiming that the Earth moves about the Sun.

When you pit your beliefs against the facts, it isn't the facts that will lose.

SkyWriting · Sep 30, 2013

bhsmte said:
I am not the one making the claim the bible is God's inspired, infallible word. Those that do, don't want to hear about the; contradictions, errors, lost originals, unknown authors, added stories centuries later etc.

That's not correct. I love to research each and every claim of error.
I find all such claims to be shallow and without support.
Better yet, each investigation builds my faith in inerrancy.

How did Judas die? He hung till he rotted and fell headlong from the noose.

bhsmte · Sep 30, 2013

SkyWriting said:
That's not correct. I love to research each and every claim of error.
I find all such claims to be shallow and without support.
Better yet, each investigation builds my faith in inerrancy.

How did Judas die? He hung till he rotted and fell headlong from the noose.

That may be true of you personally, but has does not align with my experience dealing with many other christians.

frogman2x · Sep 30, 2013

bhsmte said:
The facts are it is not a reliable document and it was written by man who clearly only had the knowledge of that time.

If sdomething is a fact it can be proven. Can you prove that statement?

More facts:

-no original copies of either the OT or NT are available.

That is a fact but it does not prove the ones we have are not accurate.

-we only have copies of the NT starting 200 years after Jesus lived.

That is not a fact. All of the N.T was written before 100AD and most were written before 70Ad.

-Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written 30-70 years after Jesus lived

That is a fact but it does not mean what they wrote is not acurate.

-The four gospels above were not written by the same, but were penned by anonymous authors (no one knows who wrote them)

That is a fact but it does not mean they are not accurate.

-No eye witness accounts in the gospels.

Evidently you have not read much of the gospels. The apostles were eyewitness to what in written in them.

-Stories were added to the NT, centuries later for effect.

Where is your evidence. Let me guess. Some skeptic website.

-at least half of the gospels attributed to Paul were not written by Paul, according to biblical scholars

According to liberal Bible scholars and I bet you a dollar to a dougnnut hole they offered no evidence. Prove me wrong.

-Boatloads of contradictions and errors are strife within the bible

Then you should be able to post 2 or 3 of your best examples. You have not done enough study to understand what is being said.

Anyone who performs a review by reading the works of people who study the bible as a profession, would learn the same.[/quote]

Ther are many conservative scholars who who do what you mention and they do it without bias.

kermit

frogman2x · Sep 30, 2013

Loudmouth said:
We've heard it all before:

CAn you prove me wrong or are you just blowing smoke?

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

That is one of the saddist comments a skeptic can make. That was the ignorance of the time and based on a false doctrine and the Bib le does not say such a thing. Try coming into the 21st century

Those darned liberal biblical scholars used to be the ones who dared to contradict the Bible by proclaiming that the Earth moves about the Sun.

Your ignorance continues.

When you pit your beliefs against the facts, it isn't the facts that will lose.[/quote]

Talk is cheap. Present your facts. Don't forget to bring along your evidence. Then we will see who loses.

kermit

frogman2x · Sep 30, 2013

bhsmte said:
I prefer to objectively study it.

I would prefer you would to but you can't. You have already made up your mind.

kermit

But the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he CANNOT understand them because they are spiritually appraised---1 Cor 2:14

bhsmte · Sep 30, 2013

frogman2x said:
If sdomething is a fact it can be proven. Can you prove that statement?

More facts:

-no original copies of either the OT or NT are available.

That is a fact but it does not prove the ones we have are not accurate.

Correct, but when the thousands of copies have considerable differences, it's a problem as to what was in the originals

-we only have copies of the NT starting 200 years after Jesus lived.

That is not a fact. All of the N.T was written before 100AD and most were written before 70Ad.

This is common knowledge and accepted by historians and scholars. The oldest full copies of the NT are approx 200 years after Jesus lived. Research will show this to be true and accepted

-Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written 30-70 years after Jesus lived

That is a fact but it does not mean what they wrote is not acurate.

It most certainly does, because considerable time passed between the events and the same being penned. These stories were reported through oral tradition and not direct eye witness accounts and we all know how stories change when weeks go by, much less decades. The gospels were also written in Greek, while the followers of Jesus spoke Aramaic.

-The four gospels above were not written by the same, but were penned by anonymous authors (no one knows who wrote them)

That is a fact but it does not mean they are not accurate.

It becomes an issue when it comes to credibility Why state someone wrote certain stories when in fact they didn't, what is the motivation?

-No eye witness accounts in the gospels.

Evidently you have not read much of the gospels. The apostles were eyewitness to what in written in them.

Explain to me how stories written 30-70 years after events could be direct eye witness accounts and not hearsay?

-Stories were added to the NT, centuries later for effect.

Will give you one example; the story of the women taken into adultery. This story does not appear in any of the oldest copies of John for centuries and then it magically appears. Scholars agree, it was clearly added hundreds of years later, to portray Jesus in a certain light and there are other examples of stories added or changed from the oldest copies.

Where is your evidence. Let me guess. Some skeptic website.

-at least half of the gospels attributed to Paul were not written by Paul, according to biblical scholars

According to liberal Bible scholars and I bet you a dollar to a dougnnut hole they offered no evidence. Prove me wrong.

Scholars determine who likely wrote the gospels based on the writing style and several of the one's attributed to Paul have a completely different writing style and most agree, were not penned by him.

-Boatloads of contradictions and errors are strife within the bible

Then you should be able to post 2 or 3 of your best examples. You have not done enough study to understand what is being said.

Anyone who performs a review by reading the works of people who study the bible as a profession, would learn the same.

Ther are many conservative scholars who who do what you mention and they do it without bias.

Some of my sources are conservative scholars like Craig Evans.

kermit[/QUOTE]

All of these topics can be easily researched online and one can see how historians and scholars have based their opinions on logic and evidence.

frogman2x · Sep 30, 2013

lasthero said:
Oh? Several? And what are these several 'assumtions' that 'raido-metric' dating makes? And what about all the other forms of dating?

Do your own homework and if you can't find it, then I will tell you.

What other forms of dating?

kermit

bhsmte · Sep 30, 2013

frogman2x said:
I would prefer you would to but you can't. You have already made up your mind.

kermit

But the natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him and he CANNOT understand them because they are spiritually appraised---1 Cor 2:14

How do you know that?

As I explained, I was motivated to study the historicity of the bible to better understand it as a believer, not to find reasons to not believe. As the process went on, I simply couldn't ignore what became objectively obvious to me.

frogman2x · Sep 30, 2013

bhsmte said:
If you claim dating methods are not reliable, how can you state the claims in the bible are reliable.

Ap;p;les and oranges. I can shdow you why dateing methods make asdsumptions. Can you show me where the Bib le is no reliable.

How many assumptions do you make about the bible and its reliability?

None. God did it and that makes it reliable. Can I prove it? Nope. I accept by faith alone just as you accept the age of the univierse by faith alone.

k

bhsmte · Sep 30, 2013

frogman2x said:
Do your own homework and if you can't find it, then I will tell you.

What other forms of dating?

kermit

Back to my question I asked before; what assumptions do you utilize to assume the bible is true and credible?

bhsmte · Sep 30, 2013

frogman2x said:
Ap;p;les and oranges. I can shdow you why dateing methods make asdsumptions. Can you show me where the Bib le is no reliable.

None. God did it and that makes it reliable. Can I prove it? Nope. I accept by faith alone just as you accept the age of the univierse by faith alone.

k

So the assumption that; "God did it" is not an assumption?

frogman2x · Sep 30, 2013

bhsmte said:
Ther are many conservative scholars who who do what you mention and they do it without bias.

Some of my sources are conservative scholars like Craig Evans.

Click to expand...

What does he say that contradicts what the Bible says?

All of these topics can be easily researched online and one can see how historians and scholars have based their opinions on logic and evidence.

Click to expand...

In the case of liberal scholars that simply is not true. Most if not all reject miracles and fulfilled prophecy and they offer NO EVIDENCE. You can't prove that a miracle did not happen and the Bible is full of fulfilled prophecies. The liberal scholars say the Bible was written to make if seem like it was fulfilled and again they NEVER offer any evidence.

kermit

frogman2x · Sep 30, 2013

bhsmte said:
How do you know that?

As I explained, I was motivated to study the historicity of the bible to better understand it as a believer, not to find reasons to not believe. As the process went on, I simply couldn't ignore what became objectively obvious to me.

Studying the history of the Bible will never help you understand the Bible. One needs to prayerfully study it but if you are not a Christian, you will never udnerstand it.

You will be able to udnerstand the literal passages but not the ones containing the spiritual truths.

kermit

bhsmte · Sep 30, 2013

frogman2x said:
Studying the history of the Bible will never help you understand the Bible. One needs to prayerfully study it but if you are not a Christian, you will never udnerstand it.

You will be able to udnerstand the literal passages but not the ones containing the spiritual truths.

kermit

Really, studying historcity is of no use in your mind? Whynis that?

bhsmte · Sep 30, 2013

frogman2x said:
bhsmte said:

Ther are many conservative scholars who who do what you mention and they do it without bias.

What does he say that contradicts what the Bible says?

In the case of liberal scholars that simply is not true. Most if not all reject miracles and fulfilled prophecy and they offer NO EVIDENCE. You can't prove that a miracle did not happen and the Bible is full of fulfilled prophecies. The liberal scholars say the Bible was written to make if seem like it was fulfilled and again they NEVER offer any evidence.

kermit

Click to expand...

How exactly do you prove a miracle, what is your method?

Biblical scholars typically critique content and biblical historians focus on the historical reliability of the content and there are some who do both. As an fyi, there is no credible historian that will claim the miracles portrayed in the bible are reliable, because miracles by nature are the least likely explanation for any event and therefore are impossible to verify with the historical method.

bhsmte · Sep 30, 2013

bhsmte said:
frogman2x said:

How exactly do you prove a miracle, what is your method?

Biblical scholars typically critique content and biblical historians focus on the historical reliability of the content and there are some who do both. As an fyi, there is no credible historian that will claim the miracles portrayed in the bible are reliable, because miracles by nature are the least likely explanation for any event and therefore are impossible to verify with the historical method.

Click to expand...

Frogman,

There is a reason that biblical prophecies are not utilized by many christian apologists during debates, because they know they can all be refuted with a logical explanation and their overall argument will lose credibility. The most well known christian apologist (william lane craig) is a typical example. He also doesnt claim we have a young earth and admits the earth is millions of years old, because again, he recognizes the evidence is overwhelming towards an old earth.

Split Rock · Sep 30, 2013

frogman2x said:
All raido-metric dating, with the possibility of carbon 14, is based on several assumtions, making the results unreliable

No. Measurable rates of radioisotope decay and observations based on stellar sources demonstrate that decay is consistant over time. Different radioisotope techniques all provide similar dates. Why do you separate C14 dating from others?

frogman2x said:
Can a process based on assumptions be accurate?

Depends on the assumptions.
1. Natural phenomena can be explained by natural laws.
2. Natural laws are consistant and do not change within their specific parameters.
All our observations reinforce those assumptions. What observations reinforce yours?

Theodor1 · Oct 1, 2013

bhsmte said:
what assumptions do you utilize to assume the bible is true and credible?

We do not assume anything. We test the Bible to see if the Bible is true and credible. We do what the Bible says to do and then we look to see if we get the results the Bible says we will get.

lasthero · Oct 1, 2013

frogman2x said:
Do your own homework and if you can't find it, then I will tell you.

That was unnescesserally rude.

What other forms?

Do your own homework.

kt[/QUOTE]

Why do YE Creationists insist on a simplistic literal reading of the bible?

Contributor

The Librarian

Newbie

frogman2x

Guest

frogman2x

Guest

frogman2x

Guest

Newbie

frogman2x

Guest

Newbie

frogman2x

Guest

Newbie

Newbie

frogman2x

Guest

frogman2x

Guest

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Conflation of Blathers

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency