How true is the Bible?

[Sar1n]

As for Darwin's theory one can accept it as real or not. I don't believe it.

Correction. You can either accept the evidence from archaeology, biology, medicine and even information technologies, in form of both scientific research and applications, or you can believe a book of religious fairy tales that shows no objective evidence for its supernatural claims. Only one is rational choice, and it's the one that produced medicine that keeps you alive.

So if you believe in religious tales, don't be surprised to be called out on your irrational behavior.

[conon394]

As for Darwin's theory one can accept it as real or not. I don't believe it.

Cool thing about science it describes actual things it does not need to believed or not to be an accurate description the observed reality. You can disbelieve in basic probability theory as well but it won't change the long term outcome of flipping a coin.


--------------

Certainly if Satan is capable of damning all mankind by simply speaking the truth then he's relatively powerful. Clearly God's narrative of fruit killing Adam "on that day" was false, he lived over nine hundred years, so maybe it wasn't that Satan was strong, but that God was a very poor planner. "I will leave this "Father of Lies" I created unsupervised with two people under a year old who have no concept of right and wrong, what could possibly go wrong?" I would not leave my child in that garden, the creator was criminally negligent and by poor safety brought Death into the world and blamed everyone except Himself. Under Australian law he'd be facing a very lengthy gaol term.

Well that's always been my problem. I can take the Greek version. we didn't really make anything. But we are in charge so don't mess with us and maybe we will help and well I guess everyone has their friends in high places as well. Or this is utter rot something created the world but it seems more less uninterested in our lives. The OT seems like a papered over version of what used a typical local religion until int made somebody powerful to have a different version or you need to justify war or empire or just killing.

[Cyclops]

Cyclops,

Of course it doesn't say it directly but since it was a separate feature put onto the land one can see that it was a type and shadow of heaven otherwisw why place it there? The rivers that ran through it would I suppose be withdrawn when the garden was so to try to evaluate them as with the rivers left doesn't follow.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Garden was withdrawn. Your version of events is not supported by Scripture.

All creation was punished by the change in nature that took effect when the curse was placed on it so why would snakes be any different?

Nowhere in Genesis does it say God cursed the whole world, he cursed three individuals and their offspring. Your version is not scriptural.

Satan was not speaking the truth because in the day that the twosome ate the fruit death did come upon not just them but all creation yet not immediately why? Because it was ordained that Jesus Christ would come into the world to save a certain body of people from out of it. That body have there names written in the book of life even before the worlds were made and shall be unfolded when Jesus Christ comes back to finalise all things. The overall story has already been finished from the heavenly timescale so in our time we are living it out until that heavenly time is fulfilled here.

Genesis 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". Now I agree with other posters the KJV is a flawed translation but you hold it to be God's Word and that statement is not equivocal. "in the day that thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die". There's no context or flow here, God lies.

As for Darwin's theory one can accept it as real or not. I don't believe it.

You deny Darwin wrote a theory of natural selection? Bizarre, you can go to Cambridge and see his manuscripts.

As for the "truth" of the theory, well its a series of propositions you can test for yourself. I would never be so arrogant as to suggest you cannot understand science. many of Darwin's propositions have been tested and found wanting by others, so the theory of natural selection has been modified in light of these observations. That's how science works, you can see if the propositions are true.

By contrast religion requires faith, often blind faith. We are capable of amazingly strong belief. We can even believe we follow a religion we think is based on a set of scriptures, when the scriptures don't really support our religion. This is a testable proposition BTW. In this thread you've been presented with mutually agreed facts about Scripture, facts you can check for yourself, yet you maintain your own beliefs about Scripture despite the facts not cohering with your beliefs.

[Common Soldier]

Nowhere in the Bible does it say the Garden was withdrawn. Your version of events is not supported by Scripture.

The Bible makes it clear that man's access to the Garden was withdrawn. God drove man out of the Garden, and made sure man could not get back in.

After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

Genesis 3:24/

Clearly, access to the Garden by man was withdrawn.

Nowhere in Genesis does it say God cursed the whole world, he cursed three individuals and their offspring. Your version is not scriptural.

Actually, it sort of does.

To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life." Genesis 3:17

Note, the ground (whole earth) is cursed because of Adam.

Genesis 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die". Now I agree with other posters the KJV is a flawed translation but you hold it to be God's Word and that statement is not equivocal. "in the day that thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die". There's no context or flow here, God lies.

And man did spiritually die the day he ate of the forbidden fruit, even if his physical body didn't die until years later. Adam could no longer abide the presence of God, but had to hide himself.

When St. Paul talks about "you were dead in your transgressions and sins" (Ephesians 2:1), he is not talking about people who were physically dead. So God in Genesis did not necessarily mean that Adam would physically drop dead when he ate of the forbidden fruit, but that he would become spiritually dead, cutoff from fellowship with God, which Adam was when he ate of the forbidden fruit.

[Cyclops]

The Bible makes it clear that man's access to the Garden was withdrawn. God drove man out of the Garden, and made sure man could not get back in.

Genesis 3:24/

Clearly, access to the Garden by man was withdrawn.

Yes but the garden is stated to be guarded by cherubim, an unnecessary feature if it is not on earth.

Actually, it sort of does.



Note, the ground (whole earth) is cursed because of Adam.

Thank you for the correction, I love this site because helpful and well informed people improve my mind by correcting my errors. Scripture does indeed say the ground is cursed because of Adam's sin. It may be that the whole Earth is cursed, however when God bestows the curse on Adam and Eve he specifically describes the enmity between Eve and the serpents as continuing between their heirs. Adam and eves heirs are not mentioned in connection to the other curses, which is odd given they are considered in Christianity to be heritable also: the context suggests they are not.

And man did spiritually die the day he ate of the forbidden fruit, even if his physical body didn't die until years later. Adam could no longer abide the presence of God, but had to hide himself.

That requires the text to be literally false and figuratively true, so it is in least part not true.

When St. Paul talks about "you were dead in your transgressions and sins" (Ephesians 2:1), he is not talking about people who were physically dead. So God in Genesis did not necessarily mean that Adam would physically drop dead when he ate of the forbidden fruit, but that he would become spiritually dead, cutoff from fellowship with God, which Adam was when he ate of the forbidden fruit.

Yes but its clear from the context and flow that Paul is speaking of a partial death. God's statement in Genesis 3: 17 is pretty bald. "In the day...thou shalt surely die". There's nothing in the context to suggest its figurative, any more than the ban on eating was figurative.

[basics]

Cyclops,

Ok, let's put it another way. Adam and Eve not only incurred Spiritual death but also physical death which they wouldn't have had they obeyed and believed God. Proof is that all things die though not necessarily at the same time but not so in the garden, why? Because it was a type and shadow of heaven where there is only life. It was placed there as a sign of what will happen to men and women who continue to defy God as well as telling us how we came to be. The continuing enmity between man and the serpent is that man outside of God is duped, deceived, constantly doing things which are unGodly thus requiring a Saviour to correct the situation they find themselves in.

The text in question is therefore both literaly and Spiritually true. Taken to the extreme, from the moment we are born we begin dying. No matter how healthy we appear our bodies have a fight on their hands because one thing is for sure that death awaits physically.

Death is not figurative as it comes to all. The Spiritual aspect however is that man has become separated from God and cannot get back to Him other than by being born again of the Spirit of God which is paid for by the blood of Jesus Christ. Every aspect of that work is down to the Triune Godhead working in unison.

[conon394]

Proof is

Belief is what you mean. The reality is the bible is objectively not realistic and its OT stories are a matter of belief that cannot be proven and its original genealogy is demonstrably not up to the nature of the evidence of modern generics (particularly on your young earth time line).

[Common Soldier]

Belief is you mean. The reality is the bible is objectively not realistic and its OT stories are a matter of belief that cannot be proven and its original genealogy is demonstrably not up to the nature of the evidence of modern generics (particularly on your young earth time line).

You are lumping all the different books of the bible, written by different people at different times, together.

Whilee Genesis appears to be a reworking of ancient mythologies, other books, such as Kings, have much of what was written in them solidly backed by archaeology. The Babylonians did sack Jerusalem, and the Assyrians did break off their siege of Jerusalem.


As for Genesis, it is not clear that the writers meat it to be literal, in that they might not have thought that if you had a time machine and went back into time you would actually see a naked woman munching on an apple talking to a snake. After, there couldnhage been no eyewitnesses to creation before day 6, so how would the author know what happened?

No one believes the parable of Jesus to be stories of actual events, so likewise the creation story and story of Adam and Eve might have just been intended to illustrate moral truths, not actual space time events.

[conon394]

You are lumping all the different books of the bible, written by different people at different times, together.

Whilee Genesis appears to be a reworking of ancient mythologies, other books, such as Kings, have much of what was written in them solidly backed by archaeology. The Babylonians did sack Jerusalem, and the Assyrians did break off their siege of Jerusalem.


As for Genesis, it is not clear that the writers meat it to be literal, in that they might not have thought that if you had a time machine and went back into time you would actually see a naked woman munching on an apple talking to a snake. After, there couldnhage been no eyewitnesses to creation before day 6, so how would the author know what happened?

No one believes the parable of Jesus to be stories of actual events, so likewise the creation story and story of Adam and Eve might have just been intended to illustrate moral truths, not actual space time events.

And that is an elegant line of thinking well established by many many very smart people over the ages. But that is not how I am pretty certain the way basics sees the issue. But to be fair I meant only to judge the Old Testament and yes some are more clearly histories written in the near about of time rather than mythology. But even the histories are potentially and often propaganda like in their design.

[Cyclops]

Cyclops,

Ok, let's put it another way. Adam and Eve not only incurred Spiritual death but also physical death which they wouldn't have had they obeyed and believed God. Proof is that all things die though not necessarily at the same time but not so in the garden, why? Because it was a type and shadow of heaven where there is only life. It was placed there as a sign of what will happen to men and women who continue to defy God as well as telling us how we came to be. The continuing enmity between man and the serpent is that man outside of God is duped, deceived, constantly doing things which are unGodly thus requiring a Saviour to correct the situation they find themselves in.

The text in question is therefore both literaly and Spiritually true. Taken to the extreme, from the moment we are born we begin dying. No matter how healthy we appear our bodies have a fight on their hands because one thing is for sure that death awaits physically.

Death is not figurative as it comes to all. The Spiritual aspect however is that man has become separated from God and cannot get back to Him other than by being born again of the Spirit of God which is paid for by the blood of Jesus Christ. Every aspect of that work is down to the Triune Godhead working in unison.

You're proceeding from your non-Scriptural assumptions to incoherent conclusions without addressing anything I have posted. The problem with proceeding from a position faith is you have to ignore all evidence that does not agree with your faith. It says a lot about your faith, but nothing about the honesty of the Bible.

The Bible says a lot of things, and a lot of what it says does not agree with you.

"In the day that thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die" but did they die in that day? No.

[basics]

And that is an elegant line of thinking well established by many many very smart people over the ages. But that is not how I am pretty certain the way basics sees the issue. But to be fair I meant only to judge the Old Testament and yes some are more clearly histories written in the near about of time rather than mythology. But even the histories are potentially and often propaganda like in their design.

conon394,

Well, in response, there actually was a witness to these events, Jesus Christ our Creator and there were many thousands of witnesses to His works when on this planet. God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit had Moses wite down what God told him to write about Genesis to clear up for the Israelites the why's and wherefore's they came about. The reason was that the people whilst in captivity had been influenced by gods worshipped in that land, gods that were a distortion from the prophetic word given in the garden at the fall, and so God set the record straight especially after just delivering them from slavery in Egypt.

[TheLeft]

Just out of interest, does anyone know the percentage of all the animal species on earth that happen to live within a short walk of Noah's House?

[conon394]

Well, in response, there actually was a witness to these events, Jesus Christ our Creator and there were many thousands of witnesses to His works when on this planet

Well if you read the OT without the new testament that is patently false there is just god. Add in the paste of the NT and sure with reborn christian understanding you might be correct.

God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit had Moses wite down what God told him to write about Genesis to clear up for the Israelites the why's and wherefore's they came about

OK you can say that and believe it, but of course simple literary analysis and or historical acumen makes single authorship of the OT an impossibility.

The reason was that the people whilst in captivity had been influenced by gods worshipped in that land, gods that were a distortion from the prophetic word given in the garden at the fall, and so God set the record straight especially after just delivering them from slavery in Egypt.

Yep and god than set them on a nice path of genocide... great.

[basics]

Just out of interest, does anyone know the percentage of all the animal species on earth that happen to live within a short walk of Noah's House?

TheLeft,

All the animal species were gathered and delivered by God for the time they were to enter the Ark. That is of course all those that God chose to be saved from the flood. Of the sacrificial types they came in sevens whilst the others by pairs. How long it took God to do that is probably governed by the time it took Noah to build and finish the Ark.

conon394,

No my ole son, if you read the Old Testament you can see that not only is it a history of Israel but more importantly about the coming Messias to fulfill all the prophecies written of Him in that set of books. No-one ever said that the Old Testament was written by a singular person but by people inspired by God. Could you expand on the genocide sentence please?

[LestaT]

How true is the bible? True to whom? Christians? Which Christians? Catholics who rejected the Protestant bible who rejected the Orthodox bible?

How true is the bible? True if you're Protestant using Protestant bible, true id you're Catholic using Catholic bible, true if you're Orrhodox using Orthodox bible.

1/3 true if you're Catholic using Orthodox or Protestant bible, 1/3 true if you're Orthodox using Catholic or Protestant bible, 1/3 true if you're Protestany using Catholic or Orthodox bible.

In other words, the bible is not the truth.

[conon394]

God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit had Moses wite down what God told him to write about Genesis to clear up for the Israelites the why's and wherefore's they came about.

Either Moses is really bad at dictation or the parts you cite are clearly not written by one person.

Could you expand on the genocide sentence please

Well if you believe the story Jericho much?

[Sar1n]

If it was just Jericho...Sodom and Gommorrah, Ten Plagues of Egypt, The Flood....

[Cyclops]

Just out of interest, does anyone know the percentage of all the animal species on earth that happen to live within a short walk of Noah's House?

100%.

Interestingly for young earth Creationist evolution deniers, there's the problem with certain fatal parasitic infections. Someone on the ark was very very sick indeed.

[basics]

conon394, Sar1n and Cyclops,

Got to take our Huskie out or he'll not stop interfering with this keyboard but I shall get back to you as soon as possible.

[basics]

Either Moses is really bad at dictation or the parts you cite are clearly not written by one person.

Well if you believe the story Jericho much?

conon394,

It is accepted that Moses wrote the Torah. Whether he used scribes is not attested to yet it is possible that he oversaw what was written exactly as God relayed it to him. It doesn't diminish what is written in any way.

Sar1n,

Never thought that these were examples of Divine Justice on peoples that followed false gods? That Justice was not just for then so beware of your own situation before God.

Cyclops,

When the Ark landed on dry ground that ground was still in a fallen state so anything that grew on it had the capacity to bring disease about. As for the family only Noah and Seth were accounted righteous before God so we find that one at least started the false religions that were to plague the world. Concerning the age of creation, I'm quite happy to accept my God's version simply because He made an up and running planet as well as the rest of the system as matured. To believe that it took billions of years is the only way man can grab it out of the hands of God and so it is to this day. He was there, who else was?