slabbey06
Bond-Servant of Christ
Or God is real and has the power to suspend the laws of science.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Historical Accuracy of the Bible
- Thread starter rojse
- Start date
Or God is real and has the power to suspend the laws of science.
That is always a theoretical possibility but, if true, you have zero grounds for confidence in your world view and pious faith is reduced to pathetic foolishness.
So... God's natural laws are insufficient to allow everything He wills to happen? Wouldn't that meant that they are deficient?
Also, as bluntly alluded to by Jay, this assertion would mean that nothing could be trusted.
If such basic principles of science such as Newton's Laws and the Law of Conservation of Energy can be suspended whenever God wants them to (such as, for example, when He commands the sun to stand still in the sky), how can we trust our senses? If we can't trust our senses, how can we trust our judgements? If we can't trust our judgements, how do we know we know anything at all?
And Pharaoh also believed that he was perceiving, believing, and acting of his own free will, but YHWH had hardened his heart, and ...
joeboonda
Well-Known Member
Ha, ME TOO!
1 Corinthians 1:23
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1 Corinthians 4:10
We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.
Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
joeboonda
Well-Known Member
While I thought we were discussing the bare historic accuracy as concerning named cities, tribes, kings, etc. it is interesting that you say this. The greatest scientists who gave us some of the greatest scientific discoveries and inventions were Christians who saw laws of science throughout the Bible. As Grant Jeffreys says: "It might surprise you to know that many of the greatest scientific minds of the last several centuries were Bible-believing Christians who totally accepted the scientific accuracy of the Word of God. For example, Isaac Newton, perhaps the greatest scientific mind in history, firmly accepted the Word of God and creation. Other strong believers in God who changed the face of scientific knowledge included: Lord Kelvin, the creator of the science of thermodynamics; Louis Pasteur, the discoverer of pasteurization; Johann Kepler, the brilliant astronomer who created modern astronomy; and Robert Boyle, the greatest chemist of his age. With every new scientific discovery we find additional proof ofthe complexity of the great design that God used to create our universe."
Here is something else interesting: The BIble says God formed Adam out of the dust of the earth which is scoffed at by many. However, after a century of examining the elements in the human body, scientists have been startled to discover that clay and earth contain every single element found in the human body. NASA'S Ames Research Center confirmed the Bible's account that every single element found in the human body exists within the soil. The scientists concluded, "We are just beginning to learn. The biblical scenario for the creation of life turns out to be not far off the mark." You can read the article in Reader's Digest, 11/82.
One thing I will say is that Almighty God did give us signs and miracles but these were very few and far between, hundreds of years between many. These were to get man's attention so he would know God was doing or telling him something important. Jesus forgave a man's sins and healed him on the Sabbath. He said if you don't believe He can forgive sins, believe Him for the very works sake. You don't believe my words? Look at the miracles. The same for the apostles, they preached the Gospel with signs, wonders and miracles following so when they said Jesus rose from the dead, people would believe because they saw the miracles. We do not perform miracles today, as we have the Biblical record and the sure word of prophecy. James D. Kennedy had finished quoting several verses which prophecied about Jesus to a Jewish man and asked who they were talking about. He said obviously they were about Jesus, so what? Kennedy said all the texts I just read you are from the Old Testament, completed some 400 years before Jesus was born. The man was stunned, He demanded to see them with his own eyes. He was shown 333 texts that make predictions about Jesus, delineating 451 details about His life. How do you explain that if the Bible was not inspired of Goe? Isn't this proof the Bible is a supernaturally accurate book?
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
We read it in the Bible, silly. :slap:
Runt
Well-Known Member
So, if one part of the Bible is historically inaccurate and thus cannot be regarded as "truth" because it has errors, how do you go about the process for determining which parts remain trustworthy and which parts are similarly flawed? Does God reveal to you what parts are true and which aren't? Are you forced to rely upon your own flawed human judgement? Or are you forced to choose arbitrarily, or according to social norms, or via some other method?
Scott1
Well-Known Member
Some of us have some "help" :
"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
Runt
Well-Known Member
But I still have to wonder how THEY go about deciding. I mean, I'm sure they're more educated about the world of the Bible and Scripture than the average person who picks the Bible and reads, but still... are they relying upon personal knowledge of history and scripture? Divine inspiration? I know (based on what little I picked up about Catholicism in the course of my studies... which is admittedly not much) that tradition plays a big part in the process, but still, I can just keep going on down the line and asking the same questions... cuz someone had to have established the tradition, and how did THEY decide?Some of us have some "help" :
"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.
Scott1
Well-Known Member
Amen Runt.... that's one of the reasons I became Catholic. Each non-Catholic Christian (specifically the evangelical/fundamentalist/bible only crowd) becomes their own Pope..... they want everyone to believe as they do but don't realize how ridiculous it looks to non-believers that they are THOUSANDS of these groups who all claim to be "Bible churches" and yet share very little in common. They just all believe that they are right and the others are wrong.... and more to the point, their theology rests on a PERSONAL relationship with Christ and their PERSONAL assurance of salvation in a "born again" experience. It's not about community or a Church, it's about them and them alone... other people are in the world to be preached to and converted... once they are, if they believe differently than they do, well then they're not really "saved" at all.
We believe that because our faith was founded on the Apostles and "In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority." Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."
Important for non-Catholic Christians to remember is the fact that the first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition and this (together with Sacred Tradition) is in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit (the Church). It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.
Hope that helps,
S
Runt
Well-Known Member
Okay, I think I understand what you're saying, but allow me to summarize briefly to make sure? Originally the New Testament existed more or less with the apostles, because it was not yet written down. They taught orally and based their authority on the fact that they'd witnessed the events which they later recorded. I assume the first bishops were their students, who they taught the oral tradition to (and had them pass it down) until such a time as it was recorded. Since that time, the authority has spread from bishop to bishop, who rely upon the tradition itself as it was passed onto them (their education) and the Spirit of truth (divine revelation?) to not only show them what remains trustworthy, but also to guide them in the task of interpretation?
Scott1
Well-Known Member
Right... but keep in mind that the faith was more than just what became the books of the NT. The book of Acts shows the early church that was centered around the teachings of the Apostles and the breaking of bread in community with others (this is the foundation of the Christian faith centered on the Eucharist as Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ).
Sounds right.... the apostles passed on the Holy Spirit to those who they wanted to lead after their deaths or in places they were not present by the "laying of hands"... this continues today in the ordination of Priests. There were so many pretenders out there and books that didn't make it into the NT there had to be a way for early Christians to know they were being tought "the truth" ---- being connected to the teachings of an apostle was the way early Christians felt comfortable they were being tought "correctly".
....this is the main reason the Pope recently reminded Catholics about the status of non-Catholic Christian groups... without apostolic roots to the apostles (which are only present in Roman Catholic/Orthodox Churches) a group can't legitimately be called a "church"..... the same is true today as it was in the first century.
S
Runt
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the explanation Scott.
:clap touche :clap
d.n.irvin
Active Member
Hi rojse
Check out the post #75 - 79 on "The 1260 Day Prophecy" in the thread "Is Bible Prophecy Reliable?" page 8 www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55011&page=8
WHether or not the Bible is historically correct is should not a matter of debate, the Bile on many occsion stands as HISTORY-Therefore its accuracy cannot be taken in cportions but in whole- and in whole the Bible is strangely accurate
As for the Parables- the Hebrews used idioms in every thing- it is all a matter of understanding this ancient "slang" language