Is the Bible God's Word?

[Earthling]

Life as we know it is the product of evolution. There never were only two people.

That's debatable, but irrelevant to the point. A stance on either creation or evolution wouldn't be easy to confirm. I have an account by the alleged creator, and you have theoretical speculation.

And what was wrong with my sources? I am betting that they are far more reliable than anything that you can find.

I'm familiar with them, but I'm confident in my source, which is the subject of this thread. The Bible. I'm afraid it is far superior to yours, The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, Evil Bible and infidels.org.

And you do not seem to realize that the morals of the God of the Old Testament are atrocious.

That's subjective, but I was under the impression that you meant the morals contained in the Bible, rather than specifically those of God.

 

[Earthling]

That only would be an example of confirmation bias, not an answer to the actual question.

I'm fairly confident that any discussion or debate on the subject could only possibly result in confirmation bias on both sides. aren't you?

Let's take a step back and reexamine the exchange thus far. Someone asked if the Bible was the word of God. From my perspective, that is from my study of the Bible, I concluded that it was, perhaps I should have said that, allegedly, the Bible is the uninspired fallible copy of the inspired fallible word of God. What say you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's debatable, but irrelevant to the point. A stance on either creation or evolution wouldn't be easy to confirm. I have an account by the alleged creator, and you have theoretical speculation.

No, it really is not. When all of the scientific evidence supports only one side there is no debate at all.

And you have a book of myths, and when it comes to the sciences you clearly have no clue. Here is a helpful hint: Avoid using terms that you do not understand.

I'm familiar with them, but I'm confident in my source, which is the subject of this thread. The Bible. I'm afraid it is far superior to yours, The Skeptic's Annotated Bible, Evil Bible and infidels.org.

Not the source that I linked. And how can a book of myths be superior to sources that refute it? The source that I linked was based upon the Bible. It appears that you did not understand how to use it.

That's subjective, but I was under the impression that you meant the morals contained in the Bible, rather than specifically those of God.

Hardly. Genocide is indefensible, and a God that gives fashion advice but cannot say that owning another human being is wrong clearly has poor morals.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm fairly confident that any discussion or debate on the subject could only possibly result in confirmation bias on both sides. aren't you?

Let's take a step back and reexamine the exchange thus far. Someone asked if the Bible was the word of God. From my perspective, that is from my study of the Bible, I concluded that it was, perhaps I should have said that, allegedly, the Bible is the uninspired fallible copy of the inspired fallible word of God. What say you?

That would only be because some Christians have trouble with the failures of the Bible.

 

[Earthling]

No, it really is not. When all of the scientific evidence supports only one side there is no debate at all.

I don't think that scientific evidence has expounded upon the spiritual, God or the Bible, unless you count archaeological, which is pretty subjective at best, and usually supports the Bible.

And you have a book of myths, and when it comes to the sciences you clearly have no clue. Here is a helpful hint: Avoid using terms that you do not understand.

We are discussing the Bible as the possible word of a specific, though as of yet unnamed god and you are accusing me of using terms that I don't understand?

Not the source that I linked. And how can a book of myths be superior to sources that refute it? The source that I linked was based upon the Bible. It appears that you did not understand how to use it.

Because they do it really poorly.

Hardly. Genocide is indefensible, and a God that gives fashion advice but cannot say that owning another human being is wrong clearly has poor morals.

Again, that is subjective, and a pretty good indicator that you are using an argument that you are emotionally fixed upon. If God created Adam and Eve and we all came from them, how could there be genocide without the extermination of the human race? As for slavery, that wasn't God's idea, it was man's.

 

[Earthling]

That would only be because some Christians have trouble with the failures of the Bible.

That, I will certainly agree is absolutely the truth, and good reason to take a close look at when examining the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think that scientific evidence has expounded upon the spiritual, God or the Bible, unless you count archaeological, which is pretty subjective at best, and usually supports the Bible.

No need for such evidence to know that many of the biblical stories are not true. The fact that life is the product of evolution does not refute the idea of a god, it only refutes a literal interpretation of Genesis.

We are discussing the Bible as the possible word of a specific, though as of yet unnamed god and you are accusing me of using terms that I don't understand?

Yes. Specifically "theory" and"speculation " so far.

Because they do it really poorly.

Why do you say that? Did you put your cursor on any of the lines and click? It helps to read the directions.

Again, that is subjective, and a pretty good indicator that you are using an argument that you are emotionally fixed upon. If God created Adam and Eve and we all came from them, how could there be genocide without the extermination of the human race? As for slavery, that wasn't God's idea, it was man's.

Wow! You do not understand what genocide is. And no, the God of the Old Testament clearly supported slavery. Are you sure that you studied the Bible?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That, I will certainly agree is absolutely the truth, and good reason to take a close look at when examining the Bible.

Then there may be hope.

 

[Earthling]

No need for such evidence to know that many of the biblical stories are not true. The fact that life is the product of evolution does not refute the idea of a god, it only refutes a literal interpretation of Genesis.

First of all, at this point, allow me to thank you for the feedback. I really do appreciate it. I'm enjoying it, as it has been a while. However, I really don't want to get into a creation vs. evolution discussion here. Even when I was an atheist in school I didn't buy into the nonsensical.

Yes. Specifically "theory" and"speculation " so far.

I used the term theoretical; concerned with or involving the theory of a subject or area of study rather than its practical application. And speculation; the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

Why do you say that? Did you put your cursor on any of the lines and click? It helps to read the directions.

OK. Lets take Genesis 1:1. The response from my website: "The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state,
indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards." http://empedocles.byethost3.com/bible/genesis/genesis1.php

That pretty much dispels all the criticisms your sources would have in the first chapter of Genesis.

Wow! You do not understand what genocide is. And no, the God of the Old Testament clearly supported slavery. Are you sure that you studied the Bible?

Genocide; the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

Unless you meant to establish that God has killed a great deal of people, and isn't finished yet, which I agree with, then there is the possibility that you misunderstood the point. He created us all, allegedly, and, even when killing everyone but Noah and his family, the creator didn't commit genocide in the latter practical use of the term, in that we all are from Adam, and so one race.

I shouldn't have made the argument. It's like saying the definition of atheist is the belief that there are no god(s) when, in fact, there are billions of them, or using the term antisemitic, when Semetic is a language, spoken by, for example, Jewish people as well as their supposed enemies the Arabs.

That probably didn't help much, did it? Never mind.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First of all, at this point, allow me to thank you for the feedback. I really do appreciate it. I'm enjoying it, as it has been a while. However, I really don't want to get into a creation vs. evolution discussion here. Even when I was an atheist in school I didn't buy into the nonsensical.

Please, don't link dishonest idiots if you want to be taken seriously.

I used the term theoretical; concerned with or involving the theory of a subject or area of study rather than its practical application. And speculation; the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

So you misused those terms. The evidence for evolution is more than firm and there is no scientific evidence to the contrary. It is far beyond speculation.

OK. Lets take Genesis 1:1. The response from my website: "The Hebrew verb consists of two different states. The perfect state indicates an action which is complete, whereas the imperfect state indicates a continuous or incomplete action.

At Genesis 1:1 the word bara, translated as created, is in the perfect state, which means that at this point the creation of the heavens and the Earth were completed. Later, as in verse 16 the Hebrew word asah, translated as made, is used, which is in the imperfect state,
indicating continuous action. The heavens and Earth were created in verse 1 and an indeterminate time later they were being prepared for habitation, much the same as a bed is manufactured (complete) and made (continuous) afterwards." http://empedocles.byethost3.com/bible/genesis/genesis1.php


That pretty much dispels all the criticisms your sources would have in the first chapter of Genesis.

I do not feel like making semantic arguments based on verses taken out of context. And no, a site that gets so many facts wrong can simply not dispel criticisms. For example the Earth was probably never a "water planet". There was probably always dry land on the Earth. There is no evidence that it ever was covered with water.

Genocide; the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.

Unless you meant to establish that God has killed a great deal of people, and isn't finished yet, which I agree with, then there is the possibility that you misunderstood the point. He created us all, allegedly, and, even when killing everyone but Noah and his family, the creator didn't commit genocide in the latter practical use of the term, in that we all are from Adam, and so one race.

I shouldn't have made the argument. It's like saying the definition of atheist is the belief that there are no god(s) when, in fact, there are billions of them, or using the term antisemitic, when Semetic is a language, spoken by, for example, Jewish people as well as their supposed enemies the Arabs.

That probably didn't help much, did it? Never mind.

You do realize that the God of the Old Testament ordered genocide more than once. And then there was the mythical genocide of the Noah's Ark story. And the idea of "race" comes partially from the Bible. Do you not remember what happened at the end of the Noah's Ark myth? The three sons went three different ways. The descendants of Ham were used as an excuse for slavery. And you have not dealt with the fact that biblical slavery was every bit as bad as the slavery of the old south, and that was okayed by the God of the Old Testament.

 

[Earthling]

I do not feel like making semantic arguments based on verses taken out of context. And no, a site that gets so many facts wrong can simply not dispel criticisms. For example the Earth was probably never a "water planet". There was probably always dry land on the Earth. There is no evidence that it ever was covered with water.

I can see that you've been pretty heavily indoctrinated. You vaguely refer to one brief statement regarding a "water planet" as "so many facts wrong" and refute it by saying "There was probably always dry land on Earth." But never mind that. Lets look at the following:

You do realize that the God of the Old Testament ordered genocide more than once.

The term Old Testament is a mistranslation of the Greek word diatheke which means covenant, not testament. So there is no such thing as a New Testament. 2 Corinthians 3:14 , rather, there was an old covenant.

And then there was the mythical genocide of the Noah's Ark story. And the idea of "race" comes partially from the Bible. Do you not remember what happened at the end of the Noah's Ark myth? The three sons went three different ways.

From Shem the Babylonians, Assyrians, Jews and Arabs, from Japheth the Indo-European and from Ham the Ethiopians, Egyptians, as well as some Arabian and African tribes, and of course, the Canaanites.

The descendants of Ham were used as an excuse for slavery.

Canaan was cursed and foretold to become a slave to Shem and Japheth. (Genesis 9:20-27) This was, in part, fulfilled when the Israelites subjugated the Canaanites, and then came under the domination of the Japhetic Medo-Persians, Greece and Rome.

It has long been erroneously thought that Ham (Cham) was cursed when in fact it was Canaan, who's descendants were not black. Cush's and Put's descendants were black. That blacks are cursed isn't a Bible teaching.

And you have not dealt with the fact that biblical slavery was every bit as bad as the slavery of the old south, and that was okayed by the God of the Old Testament.

Ask yourself, if you would, how much time passed between Adam and Eve's expulsion from the garden and God's contact with the founders of Israel was and whether or not slavery existed outside of the newly formed nation of Israel and tell me, honestly, that you still think that slavery was God's idea rather than man, who he had given the Earth to. God only introduced laws to protect the slave.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can see that you've been pretty heavily indoctrinated. You vaguely refer to one brief statement regarding a "water planet" as "so many facts wrong" and refute it by saying "There was probably always dry land on Earth." But never mind that. Lets look at the following:

Hold on instead of ignoring your errors you need to defend them. And I am not the indoctrinated one here. Just because you are losing is no excuse to insult someone.

The term Old Testament is a mistranslation of the Greek word diatheke which means covenant, not testament. So there is no such thing as a New Testament. 2 Corinthians 3:14 , rather, there was an old covenant.

Semantic trivial claim. I don't give a rat's donkey. If you have to play word games you have already lost.

From Shem the Babylonians, Assyrians, Jews and Arabs, from Japheth the Indo-European and from Ham the Ethiopians, Egyptians, as well as some Arabian and African tribes, and of course, the Canaanites.

Right, so the idea of "races" is partially due to a myth in the Bible.

Canaan was cursed and foretold to become a slave to Shem and Japheth. (Genesis 9:20-27) This was, in part, fulfilled when the Israelites subjugated the Canaanites, and then came under the domination of the Japhetic Medo-Persians, Greece and Rome.

Still not an excuse for genocide. You paint your God as evil.

It has long been erroneously thought that Ham (Cham) was cursed when in fact it was Canaan, who's descendants were not black. Cush's and Put's descendants were black. That blacks are cursed isn't a Bible teaching.

You don't seem to understand that a myth can have descendants.

Ask yourself, if you would, how much time passed between Adam and Eve's expulsion from the garden and God's contact with the founders of Israel was and whether or not slavery existed outside of the newly formed nation of Israel and tell me, honestly, that you still think that slavery was God's idea rather than man, who he had given the Earth to. God only introduced laws to protect the slave.

Once again, there were never only two people. If you want to learn some science I will gladly help you. I am not going to speculate on myth.

And you are still avoiding how the God of the Old Testament was able to tell people who they could buy slaves from, how severely they could be punished, and how to trick a fellow Hebrew into being a slave for life.

 

[sojourner]

Is the Bible God's Word?

No. Not in the sense that God wrote it verbatim and that it fell out of the sky. Or that God “told” people what to write.

 

[sun rise]

If that is so, how do we distinguish between the two?

To, the two Biblical "greatest commandments" along with the essence of the Sermon on the Mount are present in all of the major world religions in one form or the other. I take those as true.

 

[sojourner]

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in." Isaiah 40:22

You got one listed, but looking at it like the Pharisees.

“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Genesis 1:2

This verse showed that it was sphere because water will run off on a flat surface.

"He stretches out the north over empty space; He hangs the earth on nothing." Job 26:7

Like a sphere.

Okay, the Bible doesn't state the earth is a sphere exactly, but it is implied that it is.

What you said was flat earth theory. What is that? Is it this ha ha? I saw one guy present flat earth argumets and this gif on youtube and the commenters believed in a flat earth. For a while anyway.

You're committing a special case or special pleading fallacy. The populace, not just Christians, believed in Ptolomeic astronomy and it taught the geocentric model with circular orbits. I have to admit that Christians back then were part of a group to not readily accept what Copernicus and Kepler discovered.

Actually, in Genesis, the firmament is translated from a Hebrew term that means “hammered-out dome.” One hammers something hard and rigid. A dome shape fits on a disc shape. Not a sphere. The writers envisioned the earth as disc-shaped.

 

[sojourner]

the Holy Spirit has no error. If you approach the Bible with a pure heart, you will find the Bible to be perfect and free of error.

If you approach the Bible honestly, with an unbiased and open mind, and with a modicum of scholarship, you’ll find the Bible to contain many factual errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, in Genesis, the firmament is translated from a Hebrew term that means “hammered-out dome.” One hammers something hard and rigid. A dome shape fits on a disc shape. Not a sphere. The writers envisioned the earth as disc-shaped.

Yes, the Bible only describes the Earth as being flat in word and deed, though it never comes right out and says "the world is flat y'all." The claims that the Bible supports a spherical Earth can only come from a misinterpretation of scripture that describes a flat Earth, at least from my experiences.

 

[Earthling]

Yes, the Bible only describes the Earth as being flat in word and deed, though it never comes right out and says "the world is flat y'all." The claims that the Bible supports a spherical Earth can only come from a misinterpretation of scripture that describes a flat Earth, at least from my experiences.

Over 3,000 years ago Moses wrote that the earth was hanging on no visible support. Job 26:7

2,700 years ago Isaiah wrote that the earth was spherical, using the Hebrew word chugh. Isaiah 40:22

Modern day skeptics claim that the Bible presents the planet as flat due to it's use of terms like, 4 corners of the earth, or the foundation of the earth, as if I were to say to you in this modern age: The foundation of our love is honesty would imply that love was flat, or if I said: I'm going to search the four corners of the world for you would imply a flat earth. We still use the terms metaphorically today.

The clash between science and religion began in the sixth century B.C.E. with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, whose geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept endured for 2,000 years, primarily as a philosophy and would have an influence in turn on the powerful Church of Rome. It was adopted by the church due to the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle. In the book Galileo's Mistake, Wade Rowland wrote: "the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome."

Galileo's heliocentric concept challenged Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture, a direct challenge to the Church itself, and so bringing about the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admitted to their error in their judgment of Galileo.

So the static between religion and science was caused by philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Over 3,000 years ago Moses wrote that the earth was hanging on no visible support. Job 26:7

2,700 years ago Isaiah wrote that the earth was spherical, using the Hebrew word chugh. Isaiah 40:22

Modern day skeptics claim that the Bible presents the planet as flat due to it's use of terms like, 4 corners of the earth, or the foundation of the earth, as if I were to say to you in this modern age: The foundation of our love is honesty would imply that love was flat, or if I said: I'm going to search the four corners of the world for you would imply a flat earth. We still use the terms metaphorically today.

The clash between science and religion began in the sixth century B.C.E. with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, whose geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept endured for 2,000 years, primarily as a philosophy and would have an influence in turn on the powerful Church of Rome. It was adopted by the church due to the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle. In the book Galileo's Mistake, Wade Rowland wrote: "the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome."

Galileo's heliocentric concept challenged Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture, a direct challenge to the Church itself, and so bringing about the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admitted to their error in their judgment of Galileo.

So the static between religion and science was caused by philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible.

Thanks for confirming my claim. 'Hanging' implies that the Earth is hanging over something. That it is flat.

And you tell flat on your face with the Isaiah reference. That word is the word for an inscribed circle. The kind made with a compass. Such circles are always flat. The same writer also used for he Hebrew word for ball elsewhere. If he meant sphere he would have most likely use a word that describes a sphere rather than an object that cannot be a sphere.

 

[Audie]

The most popular, widely read and influential book in the history of humanity?

I'd say that is certainly consistent with a divine work!

Of course, if one uses one datum point, and considers
that sufficient, he will be well satisfied with it.

Let us hope you do not find yourself on trial for your
life in some third world country that agrees with
your ideas.

"Gentlemen of the Jury, the defendant here
has dark hair. As you see plainly in the
surveillance vid, the bank robber has dark
hair. You have no alternative but to convict."

The popularity you speak of is not so hard to explain.
It was shoved down the throats of people around
the world. Later generations internalized it.

And, let us not forget, the bible is popular becuase
it says, justifies, sanctifies anything you want to
find in it.

Black slavery? it is in there. Go to war with
your neighbours? That is there too.

Gotta love a book like that.