Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

[John Boanerges]

Glad to comply.
First, there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the world was not created in six days (and don't hand me that crap about "day in that time = more than 24 hours" -- "Day" is "day." Period.

It is only "overwhelming scientific evidence" (hyperbole?) IF...you put limitations on the power of God (more specifically Jesus, who was actually the Creator of the world if you have ever read The Book of John, Chapter One) and IF...you don't understand that there have been MULTIPLE creations. You don't still think that Genesis 2 is a retelling of Chapter One, do you? Look at the order of things. Study those two and you will see the truth...multiple creations...with how many years in between? Who knows, right?

The fossil record in no way contradicts the Scriptural account once you see the truth in this.

Second, when the sky is spoken of in Genesis, the Hebrew term is raqiya, which denotes a rigid dome. We all know that the sky isn't a rigid dome.

Guess you've never heard about the firmament that surrounded the earth back then that created very different conditions on earth, allowing the dinosaurs to survive and Pterodactyls to fly? You might wanna read up on that. Very cool stuff. While you're at it, read about what Creation scientists at the Smithsonian think destroyed that "dome" and what happened next.

Third, there's no archeological evidence either that a large number of outsiders lived in Egypt at the time of the Exodus, nor is there any archaeological evidence that there was an invasion of outsiders into Palestine at the time of the Exodus.

So, you're a fan of Israel Finkelstein, eh? There's not enough room in here to get into that debate. If that's the best you have, then it nothing compared to the countless pieces of evidence supporting the historical accuracy of the Bible. Ever been to the Holy Land?

Fourth, there's ample archaeological evidence to support the fact that David's army could not have been nearly as large as the Bible says it is. Not enough food to support that many people.

Again, you are limiting the power of God. Ever hear the story of Jesus feeding the 5,000? Have you actually read the Biblical accounts of David and his army? There is new archeological evidence being uncovered supporting the Biblical accounts as we type. Better get up to speed.

Again: There's nothing in the bible that condemns homosexuality. They didn't know about sexual orientation back then. The acts that are referred to are, by and large, acts of violence and not acts of sexual attraction. (I thought we'd agreed that you wouldn't play theologian and I wouldn't practice medicine...)

Not if you are usning the NIV...one of the most corrupt versions of the Word ever produced (it was the worst until they decided to do a gender neutral version)

Once and for all, here is a taste of what the KJV states:

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20:13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

Romans 1:24-27 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

1 Timothy 1:8-11 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

Also read Genesis 19:1-29. Why do they call it "sodomy" again?

Authorship? Since it's apparent to anyone with a brain stem who's studied the origins of the texts that we didn't begin to see actual text until after the year 700 b.c.e., it's impossible that Moses wrote any of it. It is obvious to many of the world's finest scholars that at least four different authors produced Genesis. In fact, there's a whole viable and well-accepted "source theory" to that effect.

I BELIEVE that you're simply wrong here. We clearly use different references/authorities. Maybe we should reconsider whether we really want to continue this spaghetti nailing session. (Oh, and the brain stem is mainly for involuntary function. A cerebrum is required to think. Got cerebrum?)

"Vast majority of theologians?" C'mon! Hyperbole doesn't suit you.

Ok. It is "generally accepted" by Christian theologians and Jewish scholars that Moses wrote the Torah. Is that sooo much better and less hyperbolic? (I believe what I wrote initially is the truth however, so, it is only hyperbole to those who don't believe it.)

We use the canon texts, just like everyone else does. We're not real doctors, but we play them on TV. Perhaps you'd like to rethink your cameo appearance as an exegete... Just a suggestion.

Which canons and how did YOU and your authorities decide which ones to include and which ones to toss?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So, you're a fan of Israel Finkelstein, eh? There's not enough room in here to get into that debate.

Any time.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is new archeological evidence being uncovered supporting the Biblical accounts as we type. Better get up to speed.

I am very much up to speed. Why not start a new thread?

 

[waitasec]

The fossil record in no way contradicts the Scriptural account once you see the truth in this.

really? they found kangaroo fossils in the middle east
talk about hyperbole

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The fossil record in no way contradicts the Scriptural account once you see the truth in this.

talk about hyperbole

Don't confuse incoherent nonsense with hyperbole.

 

[waitasec]

Don't confuse incoherent nonsense with hyperbole.

you're right, maybe he was serious

 

[John Boanerges]

really? they found kangaroo fossils in the middle east
talk about hyperbole

How does finding kangaroo fossils in the Middle East contradict the Scriptural account???

Do you understand why the majority of the world's oil reserves are under the desert? Where does oil come from? (Hint: "Fossil fuel") The desert wasn't always desert, was it? Do you know about the K-T event and K-Pg boundary? Even this is in keeping with Scripture once you understand the fact that there were multiple creations (re-establishments of life on earth) and that Genesis 2 is NOT a retelling Genesis 1.

The key is found in the difference of the order of events in the two chapters and supported by the verse of Genesis 2:4. There is not even a contradiction when they find human footprints in the same layers as dinosaur fossils.

Read Genesis Chapter One and Two over and over until it sinks in...if you want to see the truth in what I'm saying. WHY God destroyed these worlds (like He almost did again in Noah's day...and has now promised not to do again...is a whole nother topic).

Speaking of...do you believe in the flood? Do you know where the Ark came to rest? Do you claim to know where all of the different animals lived before the flood...or in a previous creation? Do you think that today's model is the way it has always been? The oil under the desert (e.g. Middle East, Texas) and Arctic circle tells a different tale, right?

 

[John Boanerges]

I am very much up to speed. Why not start a new thread?

You'll be glad to know that I'm only on this forum for a very short time. I don't have enough free time to stay here. I came for one reason. That's now finished. So...you can all start rejoicing now. :danana:

 

[sojourner]

You don't still think that Genesis 2 is a retelling of Chapter One, do you? Look at the order of things. Study those two and you will see the truth...multiple creations...with how many years in between? Who knows, right?

No, chapter 2 came first -- then chapter 1. The redactors put 2 different stories from 2 different traditions out of order. I've never thought that one is a "retelling" of the other.

The fossil record in no way contradicts the Scriptural account once you see the truth in this.

Eisegetical nonsense. But then, you believe that homosexuality is due to tainted ground water. and you probably believe that robots are stealing your luggage at the airport.

Guess you've never heard about the firmament that surrounded the earth back then that created very different conditions on earth, allowing the dinosaurs to survive and Pterodactyls to fly? You might wanna read up on that. Very cool stuff.

Has nothing to do with the dome being rigid and the heavenly bodies fixed upon it.
You really have to think these things through to their conclusion, Doctor.

While you're at it, read about what Creation scientists at the Smithsonian think destroyed that "dome" and what happened next.

Let me guess: All the heavenly bodies were magically thrown off into space, the earth magically filled out from a flat disc to an orb, and magically began to revolve around the sun.


And bloodletting cures the Plague.

So, you're a fan of Israel Finkelstein, eh?

Not necessarily. But "nothing in the archaeological record" speaks for itself -- and many, many historians agree. In the end, it's better than wishful thinking that magically makes history concur with the bible, because there's absolutely no way the bible could ever be [gasp!] wrong!

Ever been to the Holy Land?

Yes. Got bombed out of my hotel in Jerusalem, too. Got strip-searched in Jordan. Watched two fully-armed Mig 27s land at the airport in Beirut. Saw the roadies setting up for a Weather Report concert at the amphitheater in Cesarea Pilippi. You? BTW: What's that got to do with archeological evidence?

Ever hear the story of Jesus feeding the 5,000? Have you actually read the Biblical accounts of David and his army?

Have you ever looked at the actual anthropological data? Do you understand the hyperbole that goes hand-in-hand with mythic stories?

So, Doctor, just how tall was Jack's beanstalk, anyway?

There is new archeological evidence being uncovered supporting the Biblical accounts as we type.

Is this the same type of "evidence" that "proves" homosexuality is caused by tainted ground water?

I used to believe all the History Channel crap too. Then I grew up and went to seminary.

Not if you are usning the NIV

Never have. Don't plan on starting now.

Once and for all, here is a taste of what the KJV states:

Because, naturally, the KJ is the "truest" version available. Better take thine own advice, Doctor:

Better get up to speed.

Nonetheless,

Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

A shameful act of aggression and domination perpetrated upon honorable men by men who should be acting honorably.
Says nothing about the homosexual orientation.

Leviticus 20:13 If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

Again: bolstering the idea that shame and honor are embodied by female and male.

Romans 1:24-27 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

Likely talking about the custom of pedophilia at the time. Again: Nothing specifically about the homosexual orientation.

Also read Genesis 19:1-29. Why do they call it "sodomy" again?

Because it's man-rape.

I BELIEVE that you're simply wrong here.

This isn't about belief, Doctor.

We clearly use different references/authorities.

Yep.
Me: Real, trustoworthy, peer-reviewed scholarship
You: "My First Big Picture Book of Bible Stories"

Oh, and the brain stem is mainly for involuntary function.

Apparently what's going on in your posts.

A cerebrum is required to think.

Clearly what's going on in my posts.

Got cerebrum?

Got a brain stem? (You're gonna need it for your fun reply).

Ok. It is "generally accepted" by Christian theologians and Jewish scholars that Moses wrote the Torah.

No it isn't.
(See? The whole brain stem thing is clearly working for you!)

I believe what I wrote initially is the truth however

You apparently believe in a lot of fairy tales.

Which canons and how did YOU and your authorities decide which ones to include and which ones to toss?

Not that it's in the least cogent to the discussion, but I read the same texts every other Xtian reads. It's not up to me to "include" or "toss" anything.
What about you? Does your precious KJ include everything that was included in the 1611 version, or do you use the "Protestant Expurgated Version?"

Maybe we should reconsider whether we really want to continue this spaghetti nailing session.

Perhaps. It might be considered bad form to drub you in a battle of exegetical theory for which you are clearly unprepared.

 

[sojourner]

How does finding kangaroo fossils in the Middle East contradict the Scriptural account???

Do you understand why the majority of the world's oil reserves are under the desert? Where does oil come from? (Hint: "Fossil fuel") The desert wasn't always desert, was it? Do you know about the K-T event and K-Pg boundary? Even this is in keeping with Scripture once you understand the fact that there were multiple creations (re-establishments of life on earth) and that Genesis 2 is NOT a retelling Genesis 1.

The key is found in the difference of the order of events in the two chapters and supported by the verse of Genesis 2:4. There is not even a contradiction when they find human footprints in the same layers as dinosaur fossils.

Read Genesis Chapter One and Two over and over until it sinks in...if you want to see the truth in what I'm saying. WHY God destroyed these worlds (like He almost did again in Noah's day...and has now promised not to do again...is a whole nother topic).

Speaking of...do you believe in the flood? Do you know where the Ark came to rest? Do you claim to know where all of the different animals lived before the flood...or in a previous creation? Do you think that today's model is the way it has always been? The oil under the desert (e.g. Middle East, Texas) and Arctic circle tells a different tale, right?

The whole "series of catastrophic events" theory is well-known. It's not the same as "multiple creations." The two accounts in the Bible are not "first this creation happened, then a whole different creation happened." The two accounts refer to the same creation event.

(BTW: The earth is round, it orbits around the sun, and the sky isn't rigid. Ask the astronauts. Just thot you'd like to know...)

 

[sojourner]

You'll be glad to know that I'm only on this forum for a very short time. I don't have enough free time to stay here. I came for one reason. That's now finished. So...you can all start rejoicing now. :danana:

Translation:
My purpose was to shift blame for homosexuality while still denouncing it as "wrong." Now I have to spend time spreading that useless information across several other religious forums.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How does finding kangaroo fossils in the Middle East contradict the Scriptural account???

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is new archeological evidence being uncovered supporting the Biblical accounts as we type. Better get up to speed.

I am very much up to speed. Why not start a new thread?

You'll be glad to know that I'm only on this forum for a very short time. I don't have enough free time to stay here.

Run ...

 

[waitasec]

How does finding kangaroo fossils in the Middle East contradict the Scriptural account???

you got that wrong chief. if one were to find kangaroo fossils in the middle east it could be used as evidence for the world wide flood, but more importantly it would defuse evolution.

so start diggin'

 

[1robin]

And if God hadn't wanted the little girl to get hit by the bus, he wouldn't have placed her there in the first place.

What an appeal to sympathy. God's soveriegnty over his written word has no connection to a girl in a street.

This is fallacy writ large, my friend

. Fallacy what?

The construction of the canon is a purely human exercise and has become one that is mostly futile.

I suppose that is why it has been used as a road map for billions of people for over a thousand years to find God which they as well as I claim to have had a spiritual experience with Christ which is accurately described in detail in this highly inaccurate bible. How do you explain that it is used as a primary and many times as THE primary resource for archeology? How do you explain that it is the most scrutinised book in human history and has buried all of it's critics in the past and is still here virtually the same as it was when it was revealed? How would you explain that of the hundreds of challenges to the bible that I have accepted not a single one (besides a few minor scribal errors) have ever been shown in my experince to prove anything in the bible incorrect? In fact I found most of them have terrible assumptions or just plain lies.

Texts disappeared because the world at that time was tenuous.

You or I and maybe no one knows exactly why they dissapeared. What is evident is that God's sovereignty did not get them in the bible or widely accepted. Either God has this sovereignty or this issue is meaningless.

Do you realize how close Revelation came to being excluded and lost?

Exactly how claose? What units of measurement will you use? Since revelation is a very bizarre book and contains very sweeping claims then I would have hope it was scrutinized for the long time it was.

Yet many Xtians hold it up as even more important than the gospels.

I have never heard a single one say that. But it would be easy to see why a few might think that or at least have said something similar.

Certain texts (such as Thomas), while very important locally, had little influence in wider circles due to distribution problems. it doesn't mean that "God didn't want it in there." Thomas is a HUGE find in exegetical circles. it doesn't mean much to the average Xtian -- especially the average fundamentalist, because it's not widely translated, and not widely treated to commentary. It's non-narrative form is boring. Plus, they are suspicious of any value it might contain because "it's not in the bible."

These are the actual most likely reasons it never made it into the canon.

The Gospel of Thomas may have been excluded from the canon of the New Testament because it was believed

• not to have been written close to the time of Jesus
• not to have been written by apostolic authority or was forged in Thomas' name
• not to have been used by multiple churches over a wide geographic range
• to be heretical or unorthodox
• not to have been useful or comprehensible
• to be secret – or for adepts – as the first sentence of the gospel declares

Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If this was the most important one then the rest must have even more and better reasons to reject them. Only the last one in that list is not reason enough by it's self to reject it as reliable. It is also widely accepted that it contains many gnostic teachings.

Impact upon whom? Recently-discovered texts have a rather large impact upon the scholastic community, as they seek to determine authenticity and impact upon interpretation.

Since academics find value in every historical text right or wrong and rightly so then it's impact has no application to this issue. Since Christianity at large is far more interested in what is reliable then it's impact on that group is more relevant. I will let the scholars suck all the grant money, and find as many cameras as possible, produce as many inaccurate history channel shows as they can and then hand it off to the theologians and use their determination to begin my research. Until then any value statement on these texts is unknowable, speculative, and made in a vacume by the average non scholar.

Can you elaborate on your trade route bible book theory, I find it bizarre but interesting?

 

[waitasec]

What an appeal to sympathy. God's soveriegnty over his written word has no connection to a girl in a street.

you sound like a legalist...
don't you claim your god is a personal god?

i wonder where that idea came from
:drool:

 

[1robin]

Are you simply incapable of answering the question? Frankly, I don't believe you have a clue what textual accuracy means or how it might be measured. Now, again, how might one ascertain the textual accuracy of Isaiah?

Since I have three times with names, links, methods, and references to my other posts that have it in detail it is far more likely that you are incapable of understanding the answers. Since the three times already didn't work then I am not doing it a fourth.

You clearly have no idea how remarkably stupid that statement is. But perhaps I'm wrong. Let's try an experiment using two hypothetical texts labeled [OLD] and [NEW] ...

• [OLD] And Mosed led the people out of Egypt. And the number of people he led was six hundred thousand men old enough to bare arms.
• [NEW] And Aaron led the people out of Egypt. And the number of people he led was six contingents of men old enough to bare arms.

What is the textual accuracy of the above? (Stop squirming. After all, it's not rocket science.)

Are you doing this on purpose? I have repeatedly said the bible is not perfect and yes it has some errors. About 5% comes to mind for some reason. If a modern translation is compared to the oldest manuscripts every single discrepencie can be identified and has thousands of times. This accounts for your all important collosal earth shaddering number of Jews contention and is consistent with everything I or most textual scholars claim. I even gave you names of two of the best to no avail apparently. I have been stupid enough to give you credit as to the fact that those numbers were in fact contradictory. After actually reading them there is no contradiction just diferent techniques used to say the same thing. Good lord I didn't think I had to verify something as trivial as this but apparently I should have. I do not know whether the numbers are in fact accurate but the claims are not contradictory. Even if they were they would have been included in the 5% I have mentioned at least 10 times and have no meaningful impact on anything. Is it the Moses and Aaron thing or the numbers you are balking over? Both of them did lead the Jews. They are complamentary.

Please see above.

Once was enough

To what claims are you referring. You seem to have this disconcerting need to fabricate things out of thin air. This does not lead one to have a great deal of confidence in your ability to discern textual accuracy.

Here is the actaul link to the debate in which I used the worst numbers available for the 95%. Dr White a respected scholar by every standard actually shows that is low. So try out this thin air:
http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/white-ehrman-transcript.pdf

Lot's of people were crucified. Why do you so desperately need to change the subject?

Because the subject was trivial and meaningless and to post something meaningful required a change of the subject. Your meaningless scribal errors are included with my percentage claims are well known and have no meaningful impact on anything except the fringe fantasy that the bible is perfect.

 

[waitasec]

Since I have three times with names, links, methods, and references to my other posts that have it in detail it is far more likely that you are incapable of understanding the answers. Since the three times already didn't work then I am not doing it a fourth.

considering he isn't the only one who doesn't get your method...perhaps you are mistaken...just sayin'

 

[sojourner]

What an appeal to sympathy. God's soveriegnty over his written word has no connection to a girl in a street.

Are you saying that God has no sovereignty over humanity? Only over the bible?

Fallacy what?

That God directed what was written and what was included in the bible, in the way or to the extent you're suggesting.

I suppose that is why it has been used as a road map for billions of people for over a thousand years to find God which they as well as I claim to have had a spiritual experience with Christ which is accurately described in detail in this highly inaccurate bible. How do you explain that it is used as a primary and many times as THE primary resource for archeology? How do you explain that it is the most scrutinised book in human history and has buried all of it's critics in the past and is still here virtually the same as it was when it was revealed? How would you explain that of the hundreds of challenges to the bible that I have accepted not a single one (besides a few minor scribal errors) have ever been shown in my experince to prove anything in the bible incorrect? In fact I found most of them have terrible assumptions or just plain lies.

I didn't say that the texts or the messages are futile. I said that the construction of the canon is largely futile.

Exactly how claose? What units of measurement will you use? Since revelation is a very bizarre book and contains very sweeping claims then I would have hope it was scrutinized for the long time it was.

the way I understand it, it was a pork barrel operation.

These are the actual most likely reasons it never made it into the canon.

The Gospel of Thomas may have been excluded from the canon of the New Testament because it was believed

• not to have been written close to the time of Jesus
• not to have been written by apostolic authority or was forged in Thomas' name
• not to have been used by multiple churches over a wide geographic range
• to be heretical or unorthodox
• not to have been useful or comprehensible
• to be secret – or for adepts – as the first sentence of the gospel declares

The reason it was excluded is because it was lost by the time the canonization process began, and wasn't rediscovered until the 20th century.

by the average non scholar.

It's the scholars that produce the interpretations, commentaries, translations and studies that allow the "average non scholar" to have any access at all to the texts.

 

[waitasec]

Are you saying that God has no sovereignty over humanity? Only over the bible?

ouch...

thats gotta hurt.