I was attracted to the forum "The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy" by that description i used for the title. As if there already is a subject i missed it would have at least several years of inactivity, i thought i might as well make a new topic.
So, is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men? I would say it doesn't really matter. I mean, even if it was god's exact words, just how far are you going to believe them?
Just take Jesus as an example. What do you think would have happened if he came and said "Your whole conception of how the world is and was made is wrong, let me tell you how it really is." ?
Just for everyone to acknowledge the earth is round took thousands of years.
I like to try to write what he could have said (which he maybe actually did by the way) about the creation of the earth not being done in "seven day" but several billions of years :
You see, the Bible said the earth was created in seven days. But it is not talking about "earthian" days, how could it since the earth wasn't even created at that time? It actually were periods, called "day" so that everyone could understand the concept, several billions years long each. Oh that's right, you didn't need to handle such high numbers before and can't understand them yet. Then i'll explain that way : each day was so long that you would have time to be born, live, die, your bones to become dust and being re-used for somebody else, and that several times before it ends. What is it? You still can't grasp the concept of such a long period of time? Let's just keep it to the seven days then.
That's why i think using the bible as an absolute truth isn't good. The humanity at this time wasn't ready to accept new ways of thinking, and even now, when one of the key point of the science is to question everything, it is still hard for a new theory to be accepted, so how could God reach us if he didn't play our game and do as if we were right?
I think we should take the basic saying of the bible like the ten commandment (is it how they're called in english?), and adapt the rest to our new society. Well, even the ten commandment were probably carefully spelled not to offend the believers of the time, so it might be good to review them too (i didn't read them so i can't really talk about them).
The question now would be to know who should be doing that review. I'm certain there would be a lot of people not accepting it, even if it was from the Pope himself.
Maybe we should try to do a new conduct code, that would be accepted by everyone, believer or non believer. God said to love each other, wasn't it because he wanted us to live in peace? If he truly cares about us, then he would rather have us do it without believing in him than not doing it but believing in him. My point here is to try to spread his word even if he doesn't take the credit for it. And you have to admit, even if it is the words of men, it doesn't mean our life wouldn't be better if everybody were following it.
Well, as you can see i love to talk, sorry for going a bit off topic, i hope you had a good read ^^
So, is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men? I would say it doesn't really matter.
We know that men wrote the words, whether or not they were inspired by God is a little short on data.
I mean, even if it was god's exact words, just how far are you going to believe them?
Well, there are some things in there that we know are wrong, so, even if we thought God said them we still shouldn't believe them.
That's why i think using the bible as an absolute truth isn't good. The humanity at this time wasn't ready to accept new ways of thinking, and even now, when one of the key point of the science is to question everything, it is still hard for a new theory to be accepted, so how could God reach us if he didn't play our game and do as if we were right?
A God that has the power to create the entire Universe should not have any problem with making humanity ready to accept new ways of thinking.
the ten commandment (is it how they're called in english?)
Yes.
Maybe we should try to do a new conduct code, that would be accepted by everyone, believer or non believer. God said to love each other, wasn't it because he wanted us to live in peace? If he truly cares about us, then he would rather have us do it without believing in him than not doing it but believing in him. My point here is to try to spread his word even if he doesn't take the credit for it. And you have to admit, even if it is the words of men, it doesn't mean our life wouldn't be better if everybody were following it.
I don't really care much about the Old Testament, but I think Jesus' philosophy was good.
We know that men wrote the words, whether or not they were inspired by God is a little short on data.
Yes we have discussed this many times here at EvC and have differing beliefs,opinions, facts, and worldviews to back it up. Personally I go with what the book(one of the books within the Book) says:
quote:2 Peter 1:21- For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Truthfully, Ive seen anecdotal evidence that scriptures address the concerns of the human heart and actually have a transforming effect. Critics would say this is a biased view. The problem is, many of the critics are biased towards belief in human wisdom and would argue that the books of the Bible themselves were not inspired by a source other than human wisdom(and fallibility and motive).
Personally, I disagree, but am not opposed to human wisdom and education...I am just aware that the belief that I have been taught is sound. Critics may say that the sound precepts that I claim could be taught apart from the Bible, and I wont argue with them.
I will state that the only purpose of the Bible ultimately is to introduce humanity to Jesus Christ and that He lives today.
The Bible says it is inspired so if you beleive anything in it you may as well believe that, too.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities. -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
Rousseau, one of the most respected minds of the Renaissance, had this to say: 'Either the Bible was written by men who were inspired by God- or they were gods themselves, for it is too profound to be a mere work of man'. If your opinion differs from his, then how does your capability and objectivity stack up against Rousseau's? Lastly, I would point out that the prophetic part (as in prediction) of the Bible HAS & IS coming true. You will see this with your own eyes regardless of your opinions. Not talking Mayan calendar nonsense, nor Nostradamus hindsight- but empirically deduced validated by scientific facts. For details, email me.
Rousseau, one of the most respected minds of the Renaissance ...
Uh, no. Rousseau was born in 1712. He can't possibly have been "one of the most respected minds of the Renaissance" any more than I can be "one of the most respected minds of the Industrial Revolution". Wrong century.
... had this to say: 'Either the Bible was written by men who were inspired by God- or they were gods themselves, for it is too profound to be a mere work of man'.
Where did he say that? Could you give a reference? Only an internet search suggests that no-one has ever said that, least of all Rousseau.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that I have to believe everything he says. Nietzsche was a pretty smart German, but I don't have to become an atheist just 'cos he said so. I'd have to look at his actual arguments, wouldn't I?
As to the origin of that quote, I'll track it down and get back to you.
Well, good luck with that, 'cos I can't find that anyone said exactly that, ever.
If your religion is true, then wouldn't you be able to support its truth by saying true things? Instead, your very first argument, the one that you wanted to put first when you started posting on this thread, was demonstrably false. Doesn't that give you pause for thought?
Bible doesn't provide a better method for anything
PaulGL writes:
Rousseau, one of the most respected minds of the Renaissance, had this to say: 'Either the Bible was written by men who were inspired by God- or they were gods themselves, for it is too profound to be a mere work of man'. If your opinion differs from his, then how does your capability and objectivity stack up against Rousseau's?
Much better. Because whoever said this isn't using objectivity at all. There is nothing objective in the quote. It is a subjective claim about the Bible being "profound." In order for it to be objective, a strict measurement system for "profound" would be required, and then some sort of proof showing that man is incapable of such a level of "profound-ness."
Lastly, I would point out that the prophetic part (as in prediction) of the Bible HAS & IS coming true.
No. This is wrong and always has been.
You will see this with your own eyes regardless of your opinions.
Actually, what we've always seen with our own eyes, regardless of our opinions, is that the Bible is not factual, and there is no such thing as The Biblical Apocalypse/End Times or The Rapture. They're just made up.
For details, email me.
If you'd like to back up your statements objectively, you can do so here any time you're able. So far, you aren't doing very well.
The Bible is not inerrant, it is most definitely the words of men. This is shown beyond the shadow of a doubt merely because of the non-significance of any group of Bible believers.
Take any general group of Bible believers... They are not special. They are not happier. They are not richer. They are not more loved. They are not more loving.
They're just the same as everybody else.
That's why the Bible isn't inspired. If it was inspired, there should be some sort of discernible difference to be found.
So far, the only way we've found to make progress in this world is through objective observations. The Bible simply fails to measure up to this standard or to provide a better one.
Edited by Stile, : This was the only the only edit.
The bit about Rousseau is badly disguised argument from authority.
Poor form.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities. -Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
Re: Bible doesn't provide a better method for anything
Now from the fig tree learn her parable: when her branch is now become tender, and putteth forth its leaves, ye know that the summer is nigh; even so ye also, when ye see all these things, know ye that he is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished. (Matt. 24:3234)
It has been realized by students of the Bible for more than a hundred years (Footnote #305, published in 1876) that the parable of the fig tree meant that Israel would become a nation again. The prophecy of the Lord related to the parable of the fig tree stated that the generation that sees the fig tree put forth its leaves shall not pass away till all these things are accomplished. "All these things" refers to verses immediately preceding these verses, verses that describe outward signs of the end times and include the actual, physical return of Christ to the Earth. Israel became a nation again on May 14, 1948. This event was the fig tree becoming tender (showing unmistakable signs of life). However, the last generation starts with the putting forth of the leaves by the fig tree and not with her branch becoming tender. This (as we shall see very shortly) refers to 1967.
Notice that Luke 21:2526 is a description of outward signs also occurring at this time, since it is at the same time as these outward signs that the powers of the heavens are shaken and Satan and his angels are cast out. What causes the roaring of the sea and the billows (waves)? What is the main cause of wave action? Mainly tidal forces resulting from the influence of the moon and the sun form waves. What are the only signs in the sun that are visible to the naked eye? Sunspots! The word translated as 'stars' in Luke 21:25 may equally be in reference to the planets. Is there a connection between the cause of this great earthquake and these other, simultaneously occurring outward signs?
Let us narrow the time span for the most likely occurrence of this earthquake. What day of the year should we choose as the focal point of most likely occurrence? The most likely time for the triggering of the earthquake is the time midway between the spring and fall of 1982. Thus, the focal point of likeliest time is midnight August 4- 5, 1982 (Israeli time), midway between spring and fall. Are there any other outward prophetic signs that we may refer to?
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (Matt. 24:30)
What is the sign of the Son of man (accent on and in reference to His humanity), which will appear "in heaven" before the time of Christ's actual return?
Due to the juggling of records by the Roman Catholic Church, Christ was actually born in the year that we record as 4 B.C. Subtracting 4 B.C. from 240 B.C. gives us 236 years between the time of the star that the Wisemen followed and the recorded date of the visit of Halley's Comet in 240 B.C. Dividing 236 years by three (the number of intervals between successive visits) gives us 78 years and 8 months per interval- within the 74 to 79 year variation of the period of Halley's Comet. Undoubtedly, Halley's comet was considerably more brilliant then than now. Almost certainly this was the star that the Wisemen followed, and it was the tail of Halley's comet that was used by God to point their way.
The next appearance of Halley's comet will be in 1986 ... it will appear brightest in February of 1986 . . 318
Coincidence or fulfillment of prophecy? I also find it to be very significant that Halley's Cornet reached its apogee and thus began its return to the vicinity of the Earth's orbit in 1948, the year of Israel's reestablishment. The alignment of the planets converges with a sunspot peak only once every 1,969 years. Due to the mortality of shortperiod comets, this will almost certainly be the only time that such a convergence is followed at the appropriate time by an appearance of Haleys Comet. In this situation, we have the precise concurrence of a series of events that is unique, with a single event (Israel) that is likewise unique, all of which was prophesied nineteen centuries ago. Mathematically, there is no chance whatsoever that these events are merely coincidental. Only one statement can be made with complete assurance concerning the timing of the commencement of the rapture (and of the occurrence of the great earthquake of the sixth seal): No one (including this author) can know precisely when it will be. Also, we will not know what week Christ will probably return in until the Antichrist rises to power. Nevertheless, there are strong indications that can be drawn from the correlation of prophecy and astronomical-geological data. It is as close to 100 percent certainty as possible that the generational deadline for the return of Christ applies to the generation that witnessed the possession of all of Jerusalem by Israel. However, the precise length of such a generational period is not 100% definitive. Scripturally, we know also that Christ will not return physically until after the "sign of the Son of man" appears. If Halley's comet is indeed this sign, then the great earthquake cannot occur until the first week of August 1982, at the earliest. We know also, from Scripture, that this great earthquake does not occur until after the signs in the sun and moon and stars (planets) concur. The concurrence of the signs in the sun and planets only narrows down the timing of the occurrence of this prerequisite prophecy to the year of 1982. To narrow the timing of this prophecy further, we must consider what must be the fulfillment of the "sign in the moon."
What is the only natural sign in the moon, and does such occur in 1982? The only natural sign in the moon, an eclipse, occurred on the night of July 56, 1982. How does this eclipse relate to the beginning of the likeliest time for this earthquake, the first week of August 1982? The most likely time of day (although by no means conclusively) for the commencement of the rapture (the rapture of the manchild and firstfruits) is midnight ("At midnight, a cry was made."), Israeli time. This spectacular total eclipse in July occurred precisely one lunar cycle before midnight (Israeli time), August 45, 1982; which, in turn, is exactly mid-way between Spring and Fall. It is my opinion that the inference to be drawn from this sign in the moon is that the last week of years can start at any time after midnight of August 45 1982.
This date of 4004 B.C. is a date indicated by the Scriptures. Its actuality may not be verifiable directly from Scripture. This is to be expected as a ramification of free will, since the direct determination of an exact date would be too prone to objective methods of proof and disproof. However, the very fact of its indicativeness increases the significance of this date, since this indicated date applies as well to the date of Adam's "creation," i.e., his receiving of a human spirit. As we have seen previously, Christ was actually born in the year that we record as 4 B.C. Thus, it was four of the Lord's days (exactly 4,000 of our years) from the indicted date of "creation" to the birth of Christ. Using the same reckoning, the time of the Lord's return (which will be at the beginning of the seventh day, the millennium) should be the year 1996. If He has not returned by this time, then He has tarried because the bride still hasnt made herself ready.
Hey, until and unless I document the source of that quote, I admit that I was in error by passing on information which I had reason to believe was valid. I didn't verify this for myself. Sorry, I'm not perfect- only forgiven. And not a good messenger. That's why truth (reality) is experiential requiring faith. If you can see it, it is only temporal.
Re: Bible doesn't provide a better method for anything
PaulGL writes:
It has been realized by students of the Bible for more than a hundred years (Footnote #305, published in 1876) that the parable of the fig tree meant that Israel would become a nation again.
...
Israel became a nation again on May 14, 1948.
Prophecies... you're doing them wrong. It has been realized by all the other students for far longer than a hundred years that this prophecy is bogus. Eventual prophecies are not prophecies. Which student predicted it would happen on May 14th, even, regardless of the year? Or what about in the year of 1948, regardless of the day? Anyone actually get the time remotely close in their "prophecy"?
Almost certainly this was the star that the Wisemen followed, and it was the tail of Halley's comet that was used by God to point their way.
More likely that it was just a story.
My prophecy: Halley's comet wasn't even visible by the Bethlehem hemisphere during that period.
Now I'll look it up. Google: halley comet Bethlehem star Oh, what do we have here?
quote:In fact, contrary to popular belief, the period of the comet over the last 2000 years is almost exactly 77 years and it was soon realised that Halley had returned a few years too early. In fact, the Chinese observed Comet Halley in August and September of 12 BC and left quite a detailed description of its appearance.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)