You must be looking in the mirror.
Is Bible inerrant
- Thread starter yip1997
- Start date
You must be looking in the mirror.
Is the Genesis account of creation scientifically accurate?
Did the fall of Adam (and Eve) really take place?
The fossil evidence makes it clear that life developed over hundreds of millions of years. Man appeared on this planet only a few million years ago. By that point there were many mass extinctions, the evidence of which appears in the fossil record (i.e. the historical evidence) of this planet.
If Adam and Eve were not real people, then why did Christ die?
After all, if there is no Adam and Eve, then there is no original sin, and if there was no original sin, then whose sins did Christ die for?
Did the fall of Adam (and Eve) really take place?
The fossil evidence makes it clear that life developed over hundreds of millions of years. Man appeared on this planet only a few million years ago. By that point there were many mass extinctions, the evidence of which appears in the fossil record (i.e. the historical evidence) of this planet.
If Adam and Eve were not real people, then why did Christ die?
After all, if there is no Adam and Eve, then there is no original sin, and if there was no original sin, then whose sins did Christ die for?
Many here have attacked me because I ask questions that they cannot answer.
Let's see if any other Bible scholars here can answer them:
The Bible contains many apparent contradictions and statements that contradict scientific truths. If any of you want a list, I'll provide it.
Some embarrassed evangelicals, in a desperate attempt to make mountains into molehills, say that these are really just errors of those who copied the Bible, that the original manuscripts were perfect.
There are two major problems with that:
1. The original manuscripts do not exist. And here is my question: If God wanted believers to believe that the Bible was without error (in major matters or in minor matters), then why did God choose to have these originals destroyed? After all, if they are so important, then where are they?
2. If God is the source for all truth, then why does the Bible (either originals or today's copies) contain untruth? One minor error. Some say that the Bible on important matters of doctrine is infallible, but that in some matters (science, history, and such) it is not.
But how can error be in a book that is allegedly God-breathed? Does God care so little about the content of what supposedly represents God's special revelation to those made in God's own image?
3. Why did God let any copying errors get in the Bible in the first place? To me, it would seem that if God cared so much about the Bible. God would have ensured that the text we have today would be inerrant (in ALL matters, doctrine and other).
And, shoe and rcanfiel, if you choose to try to answer these, please do not do so with insults. When you insult someone who asks questions, it makes you look bad, as if you cannot answer the questions in the first place.
Oopa, I actually have 3 questions, not 2. Must have been a copyist's error!
Let's see if any other Bible scholars here can answer them:
The Bible contains many apparent contradictions and statements that contradict scientific truths. If any of you want a list, I'll provide it.
Some embarrassed evangelicals, in a desperate attempt to make mountains into molehills, say that these are really just errors of those who copied the Bible, that the original manuscripts were perfect.
There are two major problems with that:
1. The original manuscripts do not exist. And here is my question: If God wanted believers to believe that the Bible was without error (in major matters or in minor matters), then why did God choose to have these originals destroyed? After all, if they are so important, then where are they?
2. If God is the source for all truth, then why does the Bible (either originals or today's copies) contain untruth? One minor error. Some say that the Bible on important matters of doctrine is infallible, but that in some matters (science, history, and such) it is not.
But how can error be in a book that is allegedly God-breathed? Does God care so little about the content of what supposedly represents God's special revelation to those made in God's own image?
3. Why did God let any copying errors get in the Bible in the first place? To me, it would seem that if God cared so much about the Bible. God would have ensured that the text we have today would be inerrant (in ALL matters, doctrine and other).
And, shoe and rcanfiel, if you choose to try to answer these, please do not do so with insults. When you insult someone who asks questions, it makes you look bad, as if you cannot answer the questions in the first place.
Oopa, I actually have 3 questions, not 2. Must have been a copyist's error!
Shoe:
Jesus clearly stated divorce, just one thing in the bible, but you interpreted it as many things. I I really don't see how clear it was stated that many tihing were allowed in the Old Testament because of the people simply were not ready. Is that your own interpretation?
Jesus said, (Matt 5:17) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets: I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
I don't want to kill anyone off, cuzz I've posted this all before. But if you really want a respectable alternative interpretation of this, read Hugh Ross. He's a former PhD astronomer (and Christian) and does a good job (imo) of showing how the order presented in Genesis corresponds to the astronomical order from the point of view of an observer on earth. The last statement is the key btw. Your point of view, from the heavens, shows your 20th century bias. The author of Genesis, undoubtedly Moses, was writing from a point of view of being on planet earth (imo) which, again, matches the order of Gen 1 (with one exception that I cannot explain).
Point of view is a red herring. It is either true or it isn't.
OF COURSE Moses was writing from his point of view. But his point of view was wrong.
What about the other scientifically inaccurate statements in the Bible regarding the earth? I guess those are to be taken figuratively, and the ones that seem consistent with modern science are to be taken literally.
Fundamentalists want to have it both ways: heads I win, tails you lose.
I just mean his physical, not philosophical, point of view. The first verse (I believe) says that the Spirit was hovering on the waters. In other words, the point of view of the text is on the earth. If you realize that, then the rest of the sequence falls nicely into place. That's all I meant...
"Moses was writing from his point of view. But his point of view was wrong."
Ah, another lawgiver claiming Moses was wrong...
Good luck with your flock.
Ah, another lawgiver claiming Moses was wrong...
Good luck with your flock.
How 'bout a serious argument, for a change.
Is the Genesis 1 account (there are actually two accounts in Genesis, btw) scientifically accurate?
In other words, did God create all living things in a six-day period and have Adam name all of them (how many millions of species have there been on this planet--that's a lot of naming!!). And did all of this approximately 6011 years ago?
Did dinosaurs live with people, even though the fossil record says that over 60 million years separate the two?