Is the bible the word of God or men?

quote:

---

Tie logic with the words "HOLY BOOKS" and it implies multiple authors.

---

The semantics of the term HOLY BOOKS aside [all religions say that], is that all such holy books do not make any claims which impacts on science and ultimate questions; most holy books cannot even evidence history. Genesis is a holy book to many people of numerous religious beliefs - but its connection with science is: this is also a book which is scientific, and one can say, the introduction of science. Because here we find an orderly, sequenced and logical description of creation, which is a scientific premise even if it does not fully allign with all of science's understandings at this particular time.Equally, there is no basis the OT was authored by many writers at different times: this is baseless and has not a shred of evidence, while contradicting its textual evidences: how can numerous writers, at different times, describe scientifically verified details and events 2000 years ago - including 1000s of names, dates and places - with the accuracy of the OT?With the aspect of science, and if we look at the enigmatic issue of the universe origins, we find a vindication of the science of genesis: it opens with the universe being FINITE [it had a beginning], and the current inclination to I.D.- namely a complexity must have a transcendent intelligence as its foundation. At the present time and current status quo of science, there is no alternative to Genesis version:

quote:

---

Part 1: Einstein's Big Blunder

​

100 years ago this year, Albert Einstein published
three papers that rocked the world. These papers
proved the existence of the atom, introduced the
theory of relativity, and described quantum
mechanics.

​

Pretty good debut for a 26 year old scientist, huh?

​

His equations for relativity indicated that the universe
was expanding. This bothered him, because if it was
expanding, it must have had a beginning and a beginner.
Since neither of these appealed to him, Einstein introduced
a 'fudge factor' that ensured a 'steady state' universe,
one that had no beginning or end.

​

But in 1929, Edwin Hubble showed that the furthest
galaxies were fleeing away from each other, just as the
Big Bang model predicted. So in 1931, Einstein embraced
what would later be known as the Big Bang theory, saying,
"This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation
of creation to which I have ever listened." He referred
to the 'fudge factor' to achieve a steady-state universe
as the biggest blunder of his career.

​

As I'll explain during the next couple of days,
Einstein's theories have been thoroughly proved and
verified by experiments and measurements. But there's
an even more important implication of Einstein's discovery.
Not only does the universe have a beginning, but time
itself, our own dimension of cause and effect, began
with the Big Bang.

​

That's right -- time itself does not exist before
then. The very line of time begins with that creation
event. Matter, energy, time and space were created
in an instant by an intelligence outside of space
and time.

​

About this intelligence, Albert Einstein wrote
in his book "The World As I See It" that the harmony
of natural law "Reveals an intelligence of such
superiority that, compared with it, all the
systematic thinking and acting of human beings is
an utterly insignificant reflection."

​

He went on to write, "Everyone who is seriously
involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced
that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe--
a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in
the face of which we with our modest powers must feel
humble."

​

Pretty significant statement, wouldn't you say?

​

Stay tuned for tomorrow's installment: "Bird Droppings
on my Telescope."

​

Respectfully Submitted,

​

Perry Marshall

​

Cosmic Fingerprints, 67 East Algonquin Road, S. Barrington IL 60010 USA

---

Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If the Bible comes direct from God, then any inconsistency, at any point, seems strange and calls the whole thing into question. Do you believe that there is no contradiction in Moses describing himself as superlatively modest or writing of his own death? If so, how so?

---

Moses did not write his own epitaph - Joshua did. This can be verified by examining the dates nominated for Moses' death and verses thereafter, and alligning it with the OT calendar. There are numerous such items which intitially cast a doubt, but become clarified upon better deliberation. It is pointless taking up such items, instead of provable stats in the OT, which numbers in their millions, and the way to assess this work.

quote:

---

Just because Genesis attempts to describe the creation of the universe in an ordered way, that does not mean that it is science. Science makes progress by seeking evidence and testing it; and inviting others to test it as well. Science is testable. Science is independently verifiable. Genesis fails on these counts and is therefore not science. I also can't agree with your description of Genesis as "orderly, sequenced and logical". That may be its intention, but in fact Genesis repeats itself, events are described out of sequence and it is far from logical.

---

Yes, an orderly, step by step description is both scientific and mathematical, with each step following the previous and the next. These are posited as constants, and each generation of man will examine them according to their status of knowledge. Being scientific does not mean alligning only with all particulars held by current science; a difference in some factors does not negate or invalidate the science premise. In fact, Genesis introduced the first such scientific treatise in recorded history - which means with the universe origins, we are not debating 'holy books' but only genesis - there are no holy books elsewhere which meet such criteria. The hellenist and babylonian editions of humanised dieties bashing each other's brains for supremecy is not science, not provable and totally varied from genesis - scientifically, mathematically and historically. Genesis has impacted on all science and scientists, and all their directions: I know of no other ancient document which does that.

quote:

---

There is evidence that the OT had multiple authors. Scholarly analysis of the OT in its earliest available forms suggests four separate authors, identifiable due to their differences in writing style, preoccupations and especially, the name they give to God. The OT contains many duplications (such as the similarities between Gen 20 and Gen 26), suggesting multiple authorship. There are also many impossibilities, such as housing the entirety of the world's animals on a boat only measuring about 135 metres long ("The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits" Gen 6:15 - I'm assuming typical a 45cm cubit). This is plainly nonsense, and suggests that the OT was written by fallible mortals.

---

The flood story is debated in another thread, and is not the basis of evidencing your point. The fact is, there is no proof, only incorrect understandings and readings. The best evidence is whether the OT calendar, the oldest and most accurate, alligns with 100s of 1000s of dates throughout the OT - this is the math test; whether the names listed 5,500 years ago are authentic from an archeological pov - this is the historical tests [and impossible a feat for numerous writers in different periods to perform!]; if the constants of science are vindicated; etc. IOW, examine a document by its provable stats - and there are 100s of 1000s of these spread in its words, verses and paras.

quote:

---

how can numerous writers, at different times, describe scientifically verified details and events 2000 years ago - including 1000s of names, dates and places - with the accuracy of the OT?

​

Scientifically verified by whom? 2000 years ago from when exactly? The bible has been independently verified in places, but remains unverified in plenty more. You are implying a degree of scientific verification that simply does not exist. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that some is true, but some of it is clearly false.

---

The foremost verification used by scientists here, is 'NAMES' - a 5000 year name does NOT appear 4,500 years ago. The second means is writings style; third is histrocial factors from other depictions.

quote:

---

With the aspect of science, and if we look at the enigmatic issue of the universe origins, we find a vindication of the science of genesis

​

Where exactly?

---

From its opeing words. Genesis begins with the universe it is about to describe, being 'FINITE: that it had a beginning. ToE runs far from a background of its premise. That the universe is finite, is for science to examine and conclude, and this vindicates the first and foremost scientific preamble of the universe. It means all further descriptions must allign with this factor. Next up, all universe contained items are also finite, and never existed pre-universe; Genesis correctly goes on to describe these as post universe. This foremost scientific constant of finite was introduced by Abraham [Monotheism]; one must not be diverted by the decpetively seeming biblespeak here - this was written for all generations of man, and dates over 3000 years old. To be scientific, one must be relative of the spacetime.

quote:

---

and the current inclination to I.D.- namely a complexity must have a transcendent intelligence as its foundation

​

Where does Genesis mention this?

---

The universe was created by a creator, with wisdom - its wisdom is what science explains. This is I.D. There is no place in the universe w/o intelligence and design; science is its proof in theories and equations, which are precedent of science recognising them.

quote:

---

At the present time and current status quo of science, there is no alternative to Genesis version

​

Erm, yes there is. It's called the Big Bang. Please don't try to tell me that you were unaware of this theory. As with your assertion that there is no evidence for multiple authorship of the OT, you do not have to believe the theory, but denying its existence does your argument no favours.

---

The BB has to evidence itself in a FINITE realm: no particle existed till post-universe. Here, let me point to a great discrepency in any scientific view. The notion of creation vs evolution, is a misnomer. Science and evolution are vested post-universe only; the BB is also a post-uni premise. We do not know anything about the origins of anything. The correct premise is, CREATIONISM; SCIENCE/EVOLUTION. This stands untill we have a provable premise how a finite universe emerged - and we cannot utilise any tools and elements which are in the current universe - including parallel and multi universe scenarios. That is the enigma here. genesis opens with the second alphabet - meaning we can only know of the B to Z, the A being totally elusive. Bearing this in mind, we will not get bogged down in debates between creation and science; these are two totally different faculties, and science only relates to the B-Z. We know nothing about origins of ANYTHING whatsoever, and we remain in a science debate [B-Z], as long as we understand this difference - science can tell us nothing about origins, and thus cannot dislodge genesis: science can only validate ir invalidate certains factors of genesis post-creation.

quote:

---

As for your Einstein bit, it is very interesting and I could talk all day about why it is dishonest, but the truth is that it is completely irrelevant to this topic.
Cheers, Granny.

---

Honesty refers not to truth but truthfullness.

quote:

---

The Bible can't prove the Bible to be true.

---

This applies to academic maths only: we cannot prove maths by maths. Genesis can be proved by numerous factors: historical veirfication via archeology; math proof via datings; science proof via provable analogous experiments. The OT has never been disproven - by non-academic, hard proof; while 1000s of its stats have been proved. Upto some 15 years ago, archeologists claimed David was a myth - this has been overturned by the Tel Dan find, evidencing David was a true historical figure and wrote the psalms 3000 years ago; the psalms contain numerous mentions of Moses, and alligns with the complete narratives of the OT. I find ToE adherents prefer to pick what they like, and ignore a host of positives about Genesis.

quote:

---

Just staggeringly wrong. There aren't even "millions" of potential facts in the OT, there simply aren't enough verses. A cursory google says there are 23,145 verses in the OT (give or take a bit, OK). Just 2 million facts would require a staggering 86.41 facts per verse.
A million is very big Joseph.

---

If you give 10 words per verse, and apply all the OT upto Micah - the final OT book, you have millions of stats and sopecs, or 100s of 1000s if only the five books are considered.

quote:

---

Simply because a flood or floods occured; or that you can date the scriptures; does not indicate anything contained in the Bible in reference to YHWH to be true.

---

In a court trial, a diary is considered as proof - even in a murder trial. If the OT diarised account is provable of its historicity, it renders it an athentic account. However, we cannot prove Creationism or dislodge it, and the OT vindicates itself by declaring the Creator is not provable. There is no arguement left here.

quote:

---

Upto some 15 years ago, archeologists claimed David was a myth - this has been overturned by the Tel Dan find, evidencing David was a true historical figure and wrote the psalms 3000 years ago; the psalms contain numerous mentions of Moses, and alligns with the complete narratives of the OT.

​

The claim of David writing Psalms may be true although that does not prove that Moses existed or that YHWH is a true God.

---

Yes, it does. Moses was a mere 250 years from David; all the writings, datings and historical finds here evidence authenticity. Contrastingly, there is not a shred of disputing contemporary evidence - thus your statement is w/o basis. Moses is believed in and has impacted humanity, more than any other figure who ever existed, by period of time and concencus: 2B christians; 1.2B muslims and 15M Jews: more than Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha. The OT is the world's most proven document - despite its anciency.

quote:

---

Well the issue is really a matter of determining if the Bible is folk tales or not. Take for example that the Torah has TWO creation stories in it.

​

Yes, it does. Moses was a mere 250 years from David; all the writings, datings and historical finds here evidence authenticity. Contrastingly, there is not a shred of disputing contemporary evidence - thus your statement is w/o basis. Moses is believed in and has impacted humanity, more than any other figure who ever existed, by period of time and concencus: 2B christians; 1.2B muslims and 15M Jews: more than Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha. The OT is the world's most proven document - despite its anciency.

​

That still does not prove that Moses existed. Jesus also has impacted MANY people but there is not a shred of evidence that he actually existed. Keep in mind the Bible can't verify the Bible.

---

No, there's not two stories, but correctly portrayed by genesis. Ch 1 is a generic creation; ch 2 becomes a personalised one when man becomes historical. Moses is not proven and the only figure of this status, but evidenced; you ignored that while predating Abraham's burial is known, Moses' burial was never known - the non-proof is alligned with the text narratives.The premise of the OT should rely on provable, historical stats. The OT cannot be posited as 'stories' - they contain evidential dates and names of kings, nations and cities, with far more specifics than concerning Jesus, Mohammed or Buddha, even though those were more recent figures and should not fall short of evidence. Humanity's enigma is, we have a finite universe - and it is inexplicable outside the Genesis creationism premise: the fulcrum factor here.

Grammar was introduced in the OT. One of its requirements is, the most coherent path must be take in comprehension. The notion of a third party becomes moot here, while that of asking how can one write his own epitaph becomes an errorful path. Almost the entire narratives of the OT are in a third person, the correct mode of a retrospection account. Moses' death description is immediately followed by the book of Joshua, his successor, and accounts for a close-off of the OT five books.Further, the premise of a modern novel is out of premise here: writings were more complicated before, and this is seen most in the pristine writings of the OT, emulated by the greatest writers. The first expressionism and third party disposition comes from the OT; the shortest distance between two words are used; the most appropriate adjestives employed; controversial subjects like incest and beastiality are dealt with with the stroke of a few words - w/o resorting to expletives; and there is a total interaction of all its stats. Eg:The giving of the 10 commandments' date and day is known, by calculating all the 3000 years' dates in the OT calendar. In fact, the texts also interact. Consider the texts, which says 'REMEMBER TO OBSERVE *THIS DAY* AS THE SABBATH'; that *THIS DAY* was in fact a Saturday! Where can we find such mathematical acumen anywhere else - never mind in such an ancient text? Where can we find the first alphabetical books, so advanced that it incorporates advanced grammar and numerals within the alphabets? Where can we find the first scientific cencus, in their millions, with sub-totals of gender and ages - with sum totals of verification at the final count? These cannot be called 'stories'.If we find a statute which says the pig is the only animal with a hidden biological trait not shared by any other animal, and this is vindicated after 3500 years, one must ask how this could be known: did Moses know there was no such animal in Tasmania or the Amazons? A fluke guess becomes negated when we find four other stats about different animals, even of fish in the oceans. This makes me see that biology was fully understood here. So was medicine, which was first introduced here, with its first separation from the occult: the treatment, ID and quarantine of malignant, infectious and contagious deseases is introduced with the desease of Leprosy. Medicine is the firerunner of science. The first scientific equation is the universe is finite, and repro comes from the seed factor. At least, there is great science here - which has never been dislodged.That the first creation chapter uses a technical word for 'create' [something from nothing], which does not appear again after the first verse, and is replaced by 'formed [something from something else] - it does not appear a 'typo' but intentional; specially when it alligns with Creationism. This is why these do not appear as stories of myth or chance - else I would not pursue such thoughts. There is a notorious phobia of any writings which allign with a theology or creationism - because it contradicts what bible bashers like to hear. But the OT is varied from all other bibles - it appeared 2000 years before the NT and Quran, and contains what those do not even mention: the universe origins.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The second indication is in Genesis 1:27 because God created male and female at the same time but according to Genesis 2:6-7 LORD God created male and then created female later(2:20).

---

The second is an expanded explation of the first. 'Human' kind was the last of the chronological life forms; human is then posited as a dual-gendered life in its originality, and separated later. There is no alternative to this. The texts is perfectly presented. Genesis had to first introduce the concept and premise of a human's emergence; then explain what that is. Its qualification is in 'MAN AND WOMEN CREATED HE THEM' - meaning the first human was dual-gendered, and there is no alternative to this, concerning all life forms in their original appearence.The same vercity applies with your other questions. There are not two names in Genesis - there are no names for the Creator in the OT. Those are descriptive and contextual: one concerns creation through nature; the second in respect of a speech endowed life form, whereby direct interaction and dialogue is employed. The first reference is an objective one; the second a subjective one. It is how you would explain to a child how the house he lives in appeared: you would speak objectively first, because it predates the child's emergence; then when the child is relevent and born, you would speak subjectively. It alligns with Monotheism, and that 'THERE IS NO OTHER'. The OT is like a maths treatise - all its tets are interactive and intergrated, so all stats must be factored.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Read below it represents YEHWEH makes mistakes.

​

not a man to till the ground.

---

Before the rains, there was no man to till the ground. Immediately, we find here the reason for introducing the rains in the following verse.

I cannot do that. And you should ask such.

quote:

---

Joseph,
I just realized you missed the mistake. The mistake is LORD God wanted to create a help meet for Adam. The issue is LORD God made animals and figured out that none of them were suitable for Adam. So LORD God THEN created female. READ THE SCRIPTURE!!!

---

This is correct. Eve appears after it is evident Adam is different from all other animals, being speech endowed. ToE failed to factor this difference, accounting human as one of the animal species.In a science thread, we should stick to scientific or historical or mathematic factors, not semantics of what is a rich and complicated texts, requiring many years of deliberation and understanding.

Both chaters are a continuation, with words and terms from each other. The first describes the emergence of humans from a creational aspect; the second is a human in his role as a man in the real world. You will find animals listed generically in ch. 1, then thereafter we find animal rights laws, and how they must be treated. There is perfect protocol here.

quote:

---

So, YHWH Elohim made a mistake?

---

No mistake here. Ch 1 says Adam [a generic human here] was dual-gendered. Ch 2 makes it clear his mate is not an animal; when this is evidenced, then only is Eve seperated. You missed the point here: that there is no alternative to the dual-gendered origin of life forms.There is evidence and proof throughout Genesis, and this is for us to determine, via science. Maybe you would like to explain how a FINITE universe emerged, in any form varied from Genesis:You cannot use any products or elements within the universe - because these too were finite and post universe - obviously. Nor can you retreat to parallel or multi universes, as this would contradict the finite factor.Its thus you who does not understand what Genesis is saying, and why I support it. if you follow ToE backwards, you end up in a brick wall. The universe is finite: the opening preamble in genesis. Anything postulated thereafter has to allign with that factor.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You obviously don't understand the TOE because the TOE stops here on planet earth. Who cares if the universe is finite because it is off topic.

---

Show us your understanding of ToE, by explaining why we have to wait millions of years to witness what is an ON-GOING PROCESS? Caution - this calls for some maths!The universe being finite has pivotal impacts: a foundation premises becomes non-negotiable here. NS & Adaptation cannot be deemed as process subject to only one planet - it would have to be pervasive - even in harsher environs. Explain why ToE works on this planet's harsh claimates, in volcanic cores and at the base of oceans where there is no light? Why does gravity process not suffer the cavuum of ToE on other planets? Adaptation means it can adapt to gasses other than oxygen, and elements other than water - if the name employed has any meaning.We find both issues never answered - both the time factor and the universal constancy factors. We find ToE supports limited to an after the fact process, yet we see terms such as CREATION VS EVOLUTION: how can an after the fact process compete with an origins premise?