How true is the Bible?

[basics]

Concerning the Genesis story and its age, there is a university in America which has a portion of Scripture on a plate which predates anything ever written about our beginning by about one hundred and fifty years and translated by a man called Hiltrecht if memory serves me. I have a copy but at the moment can't find it but when I do I will post on it. Now concerning Jesus Christ and Genesis one has to consider His standing. Is He God the Son? Is He as John tells us the Creator of all things, no exceptions? If He is then He must have been there to do the Creating. So, when God said let there be light what was that light and where did it come from? John claims that Jesus was and is the Light. But how do I know that? I can go to John and read his experience in the heavens in seeing the new heaven and earth being lit by the same Light that lit the earth on the first day as well as read his first book.

Now concerning the so-called difference in the creation story where is it? In the first it is God Who is at the centre of what is written whilst in the second it is the things that He created that take centrefold but there is no contradiction. He made an up and running planet inhabited by all living things and then He placed man over them. Creation was completed. Adam and Eve were given the run of the garden with one exception, the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Surely one must see sin in evil here? Sin is evil and evil is sin so what more has to be said about it? Immediately on eating the fruit their eyes were opened to something they had never before experienced and in fear they tried to hide from God. Their first lie was that they hid because they were naked, God asking them how did they know they were naked? God didn't have to tell them why because they already knew they had done wrong because the knowledge told them and so they compiled their sin by adding blame to each other and the serpent. Have I added or taken anything from what is written?

So God put a curse on all three involved meaning that sin or evil would rule over them and their posterity as well as giving them a way out of their sin or evil by introducing a " seed " whom Paul tells us was Jesus Christ that all who believe on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. Therefore they were caste out of the type and figure that the garden was of heaven and sent into a world that was fallen with them. Up until then we have only two people, a serpent and God Whom we know by John as being Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God sacrificed before the world's were made. It was He Who had Moses write all this down for the very same reason as applied in the garden, that the Jews in captivity were persuaded by the Egyptian gods rather than believing in the God of their fathers. For all the signs and wonders they were to experience sin still ruled them beside a few who did believe. Therefore the Book of the Law, the Torah, had to be precise in every aspect for it was the only written word of God laying out the problem of evil or sin that they had outside of oral tradition. It sure wouldn't save them all but it did save a healthy number who would keep the Torah alive as can be seen in the Book to the Hebrews. Have I added or subtracted anything from the Scriptures?

Jesus when He came said that He didn't come to condemn the world rather to save the world and by that He took pains to explain that a man must be born again of the Spirit of God if he is to inherit eternal life. That is the sole instruction for salvation's surety. The first rule in that procedure is that the Father draws men to Jesus by the Holy Spirit. It's a One on one situation that is triggered by the hearing of the Word, the Gospel. The first step is being made aware of the distance between a person and God that being called condemnation followed by repentance. This stage is called the broken and contrite heart and is the point where regeneration takes place. David spoke well of it in the Psalms. On becoming regenerate Jesus seals the deal by embedding the Holy Spirit into that person and from that point he or she is a new creature in Christ Jesus. All the past is gone and that confirmed by the Father in the Book to the Hebrews where He says that now when saved He never ever remembered them as being sinners. That is the power of God's forgiveness. So, have I added or subtracted anything from what is written?

In my nearly thirtyseven years of salvation I have never seen anyone able to outlast the written word because for obvious reasons we all die. Jesus came that man might not die, or perish as is written, but have everlasting life. I know that someday I will experience no pain, physical, mental or Spiritual ever again because of what I was given to see that night at Calvary. That I won't perish is because I do believe that He died for me a worthless sinner on that cross as my substitute. He rose again as I will rise again on that great day but remember this the next time He comes He comes with the wrath of God to finalise all things. So, have I added anything or subtracted anything from what is written?

[conon394]

Concerning the Genesis story and its age, there is a university in America which has a portion of Scripture on a plate which predates anything ever written about our beginning by about one hundred and fifty years and translated by a man called Hiltrecht if memory serves me. I have a copy but at the moment can't find it but when I do I will post on it.

Umm color me underwhelmed. If you can find a credible Hebrew Genesis source that predates a ton of Mesopotamian stories say Gilgamesh... No doubt there is some great academic conspiracy at work right?

As far as I know the earliest potential Hebrew biblical text is that of the protection amulets known as the Silver Scrolls. Solidly dated to circa 600 BC. They do prove that a protection prayer that is eventually in the Book of Numbers was extent at that time but of course not anything about the Hebrew Bible - in total. What it does not do is get you anywhere close to per-dating Mesopotamian creations stories.

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/s...in-silver.html

Surely one must see sin in evil here? Sin is evil and evil is sin so what more has to be said about it?

Umm bad planning from a supposedly all powerful being? No perimeter security. Leaving the one thing you don't want touched out in the open. And petty petulance why is everyone or anything punished that did not actually do anything wrong?

[Prodromos]

Thinking on about what happens when Jesus does come back to judge all as well as put this creation into non-existence what sprung to mind was that as God cannot live with darkness and there won't be any in the new heaven and earth all those going into eternal torment will nor can ever find rest again. God lives in light because He is Light and so all them condemned to this fate in the heavens will never know peace never mind rest for their souls. As their sin will ever be before them all the attributes of that sin will be all that they know for all eternity. Jesus gave us a picture of that with the parable of the poor guy in the arms of Abraham and the rich guy across the chasm in hell. So what happens does so because God is just and has to be making the Bible more relevent than ever. Who in their right mind wants a future like that especially when there is an alternative in Jesus Christ?

I think pride is the main animating force behind disbelief. Many people, including most nominal Christians, can't stand the thought of someone being ontologically superior to them, to whom they owe worship. They believe their will is supreme, even over that of God. What disbelief ultimately boils down to, really, is self-worship.

I Will Gladly Believe In God If You'll Just Show Me Evidence His Opinions Are Identical To Mine | The Babylon Bee



Milton was right, I think, when he summed up the choice of every Hell-bound soul in the words, "Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven." God doesn't put anyone in Hell; people put themselves in Hell, against God's wishes. As C.S. Lewis put it:

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, in the end, 'Thy will be done.'”

[conon394]

think pride is the main animating force behind disbelief. Many people, including most nominal Christians, can't stand the thought of someone being ontologically superior to them, to whom they owe worship. They believe their will is supreme, even over that of God. What disbelief ultimately boils down to, really, is self-worship.

Or maybe a creation story that involves a big talk from a manager that was in over his head came (lets be clear his creation stuff is all he said vs what?) up with a bad plan and his fix was implemented slowly and consistently ineffectively. On balance he would be fired from the apprentice. At least the Greeks were honest their gods were just the current renters and the creates did not really care a bit if they even perceived their creation at all

[Common Soldier]

I see two creation stories that do not cohere. I think they were both written by people who loved God and wanted to describe humans through a creation story. In one men and women are created at the same time, after animals: in the other man is created first, then animals (to be his helpmeet) and then women. These are contradictions. We can try to understand the variant positions, but I don;t thin we can say they come from the same place: some Bible stories are a collision of beliefs in my view.

The writers and editors that gradually accumulated the Bible felt Scripture was important but some did try to reconcile (by editing) conflicting traditions. Seriously take a look at the ten Commandments. Moses goes up the mountain at exodus 19 and gets the Law and writes it down, then again with seventy elders at exodus 24 (this after being told anyone that climbs the mountain must be killed-then no one but Moses can see God but the seventy see God), then he reads it to the people, then he goes up again and gets the law again.

As I showed, different accounts could be explaining different things and illustrating different theological principles, as in the 7 Days of Creation account versus the Adam and Eve account. That the reasons the different accounts were included might not be obvious to us doesn't mean that the writer didn't have a purpose in including the different accounts other than he couldn't make up his mind what account to include or he didn't notice they were different.

The differences between Exodus 19 and 24 are not necessarily as contradictory as you think. God could have reiterated his commandments, this time in front of more witnesses, and the exception he granted to Moses the first time he extended to a few more people the second time. In both, the average Israelite was strictly forbidden from climbing Sinai.

To my eyes its at least three (maybe many more) narratives hashed together, with a bunch of laws inserted later. The different stories have different ideas about whether you can see God or not, if you can climb Sinai or not, who did what when. I think an honest scribe found a bunch of old traditions about the story and jotted them all down in short form so nothing would be lost. It looks like a mess but I respect the honesty of the complier.

It was a principle of the Old Testament that you required 2 witnesses for a testimony to be valid. You see this principle put in practice when Jesus sends out the 70 disciples in teams of 2 (Luke 10) and in the ministry of Barnabas and Paul, Peter and John. Repeating the same account could be a way of emphasizing their veracity.

Other stories run smooth as silk, they look like literary inventions (eg Ruth). they convey a truth but I think they are fabrications with some tue sounding bits.

The smoothness of the stories might reflect the writer was just better at story telling, or did a better job of adapting his source material, rather than it being necessarily a sign of fabrication.

I agree, there is much in the Bible that is history flavoured. Jesus birth story is varied because the writers wanted to make different rhetorical points about him. Those points may be theologically true they are inventions and in some sense lies. Jesus can't have two genealogies in a real DNA sense, especially if he's the Son Of God. Some of the stories look like hurried answers to awkward questions that got folded into the tradition.

Ancient genealogies of real people sometimes traced the descent back to a god/goddess. And genealogies would sometimes skip generations, so the "son of" was really the "grandson of". Genealogies were not about tracing DNA genetic descent, but how the present person was related to persons of the past. The 2 genealogies of Jesus served different purposes, Matthew's to demonstrate Jesus Jewish identity, and Luke's descent from Adam to show Jesus human nature and common identity with all mankind.

I agree: the zeal and belief of the Gospels i think show there was a really inspiring teacher, and after he died his followers sincerely believed he came back to life. It also shows that zeal was unconnected to a lot of facts as they are freely invented to patch holes in the story. Jesus' life was clearly a very bright light in the life of his followers but they didn't remember everything about him. The parts for me that are true is they loved him, the parts that are false are made up and contradictory stories about his childhood that none of them saw.

You comments demonstrate a key point - despite a complete lack of information on Jesus childhood in the official gospels, those gospels that attempted to fill in the gap were rejected for including in the canon of scripture. The early Christians thought it was better to do without any information at all rather than include information they thought was inauthentic. That is not a community that is interested in inventing tales about Jesus, otherwise they would have included these other gospels that included stories of Jesus childhood.

And it wasn't just about being authentic. Matthew and Luke both used a sayings gospel that wasn't preserved. Even though it was regarded as authentic, as its use by Luke and Matthews shows, it wasn't preserved because it didn't have the right format - the Christian community wasn't interested in sayings of Jesus without a context with which they were said.

I agree completely and its a very fine point. The Bible contains a great deal of human truth, and honest attempts to understand God. It is immature to think is somehow 'all lies", just as its childish to think it is an email from God.

Yes, the Bible is not an email from God. But I do think there is room for the idea that God could have inspired, or manipulated writers to write down the things he wanted said. Since he chose imperfect humans as his tools, the results would not be perfect either, but "good enough" maybe all God needed. As I said, God seems to want us to grow as beings, and just handing everything on a silver platter isn't going to promote growth and maturity. If God exist, he could have just handed humans written tablets with everything he wanted said, but he clearly didn't.

Its a weakness on my part I know. The faith of believers I know makes them strong and often very good people and I respect it.

I didn't quite mean it like that. I just meant, that if a person really believed what the Bible said, that God really did part the Red Sea, and Jesus really did rise from the dead, they wouldn't still be a non believer, being an agnostic and nonbeliever really implies that if you have examined what the Bible said, you found it unconvincing. If you had found the Bible convincing and believed what it said, then you wouldn't still be an unbeliever. Were you right in your judgment? Only time can tell, when we die will find out for certain who was right.

[basics]

Umm color me underwhelmed. If you can find a credible Hebrew Genesis source that predates a ton of Mesopotamian stories say Gilgamesh... No doubt there is some great academic conspiracy at work right?

As far as I know the earliest potential Hebrew biblical text is that of the protection amulets known as the Silver Scrolls. Solidly dated to circa 600 BC. They do prove that a protection prayer that is eventually in the Book of Numbers was extent at that time but of course not anything about the Hebrew Bible - in total. What it does not do is get you anywhere close to per-dating Mesopotamian creations stories.

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/s...in-silver.html

Umm bad planning from a supposedly all powerful being? No perimeter security. Leaving the one thing you don't want touched out in the open. And petty petulance why is everyone or anything punished that did not actually do anything wrong?

conon394,

In the University of Pennsylvania there is a tablet numbered CBM13532 which was discovered by Professor Hermann Volrath Hilprecht's team at a dig at the site of the ancient city of Nippur between 1899 and 1900. By the 1st December 1909 he finally managed to clean the tablet and translate it. The fragment dates from about 2200 BC. That's about 150 years earlier than any other Gilgamesh account and is more in accord with the Biblical explanation for the flood. Translated originally by Hilprecht and the damaged sections by Hommell, it reads as follows,

" The springs of the deep will I open. A flood will I send which will affect all mankind at once. But seek thou deliverance before the flood breaks forth for over all living beings, however many they are, will I bring annihilation, destruction, ruin. take wood and pitch and build a large ship!.......cubits be its complete height.......a houseboat it shall be, containing those who preserve their life.......with a strong roofing cover it........the ship which thou makest, take into it.......the animals of the fields, the birds of the air and the reptiles, two of each.....instead of ( their whole ) number......and the family of the....."

Noah, Shem, Ham and Japeth were all still living at the time of the plate's writing. The fragments of the Gilgamesh Epic can now no longer be touted as the origin of the Genesis flood account for there is nothing earlier than this plate.

Bad planning eh?

[conon394]

In the University of Pennsylvania there is a tablet numbered CBM13532 which was discovered by Professor Hermann Volrath Hilprecht's team at a dig at the site of the ancient city of Nippur between 1899 and 1900. By the 1st December 1909 he finally managed to clean the tablet and translate it. The fragment dates from about 2200 BC. That's about 150 years earlier than any other Gilgamesh account and is more in accord with the Biblical explanation for the flood. Translated originally by Hilprecht and the damaged sections by Hommell, it reads as follows,

Err no you have a two layers of a poor translation and a breath taking amount of insertion that would generally subject to significant scorn (which it was) and sort of not being taken seriously. You can argue about a letter but inserting whole phases is generally frowned on...


… “thee,
… “[the confines of heaven and earth] I will loosen,
… “[A deluge I will make] and it shall sweep away all men together;
… “[but thou see]k life before the deluge cometh forth;
… “[For over all living beings,] as many as there are, I will bring overthrow, destruction, annihilation.
… … “Build a great ship and
… … “total height shall be its structure.
… … “it shall be a house-boat carrying what has been saved of life.
… … “with a strong deck cover (it).
… “[The ship] which thou shalt make,

… “[into it br]ing the beasts of the field, the birds of heaven,
… “[and the creeping things, two of everything] instead of a number,
… … “and the family ….
…. “and” … …

The ellipses denote a measure of completely missing text. The brackets are inserted text by your cited translator(s). If you are going to look at sources that are Sumerian clay tablets stop if they have neither of the preceding at minimum and not a commentary on the the words actually translated, source, letter forms, space for actual letters, habits of the author, etc. You are not getting good history.

For a discussion:

Prince, John Dyneley, and Frederick A. Vanderburgh. "The New Hilprecht Deluge Tablet." The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 26, no. 4 (1910): 303-08. http://www.jstor.org/stable/527827.

Note page 2 the reception was often not a nice as my citation. That being Hilprecht was just making stuff up. What he had is indeed likely a Sumerian fragment of a flood story. But what it is not is a anything close to Genesis.

So yes Mesopotamian deluge stories predate the Bible that does not prove the bible account in any particular way. Also you were being rather expansive with saying Genesis in my opinion rather than just look another flood story maybe with a lot of squinting in post 241

Also the Letter forms deny Hilprecht's early dating.

Modern catalogue is CBS 13532 not all that exciting with out made up stuff

https://books.google.com/books?id=RM...013532&f=false

Should put you on the right page, plus two more middle not old Babylonian dating sources.

Edit: Note any modern published source still using CBM13532 (the old catalog) is perhaps willfully misleading since it would be more difficult to follow the academic discussions of the item...

Noah, Shem, Ham and Japeth were all still living at the time of the plate's writing. The fragments of the Gilgamesh Epic can now no longer be touted as the origin of the Genesis flood account for there is nothing earlier than this plate.

Wrong with minimal research.

In any case the early dating is unacceptable and is not credible and even were it you have a not biblical maybe flood narrative of unknown scope and reason implemented by and unknown god. Of course were Noah or the principles alive one wonder why a Babylonian scribe wrote what seems like a fairly third hand description and also a tad odd the whole civilization developed in full form in what 300 years?

[basics]

conon394,

Well at least you didn't say it was a fake it being real enough. So, it really comes down to a question of timing which if using Ussher's flood date, 2348BC that dates the tablet to 150 odd years after the flood meaning that Noah, Shem, Ham and japeth were all still alive at its time of writing according to Bill Cooper PhD ThD. The point is that the flood stories correspond to the Biblical account. Oh God may be unknown to you but at least as God He would have been there unlike any of the translators. As to the recovery rate of man from then and I take it that is your last question, one only has to look at the abortion rates to realise that man's ability to reproduce is quite astounding and we are talking of around 3/4 thousand years since the flood off the top of my head. Therefore for eight people to begin the process all over again at a rate of one/two babies every nine months over 300 times 12 shouldn't be so hard to calculate. Further as each newborn reaches the age of puberty he and she only adds to the population growth as their instincts kick in. So the original four could have made 1.3 babies every year until the first of these began adding to the population meaning that in fourteen years 18 new breeders were born and taking them as half male and half female we now have 17 breeding pairs who for another 14 years could see that double to 34 breeding pairs and so on. Therefore in 300 years the population able to reproduce would be nearly 22 times more than the original 8.

[conon394]

Well at least you didn't say it was a fake it being real enough.

Why would I call it a fake. The so called translation produced by Hilprecht does amount to being effectively a fake if you read Prince and Vanderburgh that is more or less what they say using slight oblique passive aggressive real PhD speak. But the existence of a middle Babylonian tablet with a very fragmented inscription is a fact.

Bill Cooper PhD ThD

Now we have a real fake you do realize his claimed post graduate work is a fraud? The University he cites does not exist. Although interestingly there is a similar named institution in Georgia 'Emmanuel College' that while real does not produce post graduate degrees. Getting a PhD is by design hard, you are suppose to fail more or less. The record of achieving a Thesis is as you might expect something of a badge of honer and even if you did not publish it directly and even if was in some absoultly obscure field there will be a fairly easily available record of your work at you institution that since google is pretty easy to find. Seeing as I can't even find the supposed university that handed out his rather quick acquisition of not one but two post graduate degrees, I suppose I am less than surprised that his has no publication record or even a verifiable thesis. Science and academia are really not a cabal designed to hurt God. Do yourself a favor at at least listen to arguments from those who can get real degrees from real institutions and had to face a rigorous challenge to their ideals.

Again faith aside basics do some research. It took me a phone call to ascertain from Eastern Michigan University that I really do have a BA with Honers from an actual university. My wife's publication record in journals back to her thesis is trivial to find as are those of every scientist I have ever worked with or ran IT security or coded for.... Your guy Bill Cooper has no record. I believe at best he might have a BS - but I can find nobody on the phone from the mother country who says he has honors, his post graduated institution is flat fraud, so what to make of that. A publication record in Google scholar with citations - no... just baseless credential fraud.

The point is that the flood stories correspond to the Biblical account

No the point is the actual text does not unless you make stuff up.

2348BC that dates the tablet to 150 odd years after the flood meaning that Noah, Shem, Ham and japeth were all still alive at its time of writing according to Bill Cooper PhD ThD

The tablet is firmly dated to the Middle Babylonian Period. Thus the circular Bible based link is a fail. If The primaries of the Biblical story were alive I would think a better record might exist and in fact seeing as there supposed alive you would also think the world's progeny would be a little more attentive to their strikingly old parents and you know believe?

As to the recovery rate of man from then and I take it that is your last question, one only has to look at the abortion rates to realise that man's ability to reproduce is quite astounding and we are talking of around 3/4 thousand years since the flood off the top of my head. Therefore for eight people to begin the process all over again at a rate of one/two babies every nine months over 300 times 12 shouldn't be so hard to calculate. Further as each newborn reaches the age of puberty he and she only adds to the population growth as their instincts kick in. So the original four could have made 1.3 babies every year until the first of these began adding to the population meaning that in fourteen years 18 new breeders were born and taking them as half male and half female we now have 17 breeding pairs who for another 14 years could see that double to 34 breeding pairs and so on. Therefore in 300 years the population able to reproduce would be nearly 22 times more than the original 8.

Wait you can't jump to 3-4 thousand years I was asking about just your asserted 150 years after the flood... Also you math is the same as the fallacy of the Fermi paradox. But in any case as soon as you find me a society that saw every women start having a child as soon as possible and continuously for her whole life and no death in child birth and somehow avoided the huge demographic chasm that is making to 5 at any time before like the last 100 years or so... you might just had some way to argue about a 3-4 thousand years thing. But not 150 years after starting with 8 people. Problematically you would also have a readily detectable genetic bottleneck that does not exist.

---

I really really don't, don't want to sound like a proselytizing Atheist.. but don't waste your time with second hand bad pseudo science/history basics. If you believe you got all you need anyway. The people tossing out bad science and poor history with in many cases really bad credentials should not turn your head.

[basics]

conon394,

Are you OK? Are you really mellowing in your old age as I expected to be lambasted by you for my post? The point is that any science concerning the past can only be verified either by a world view of evaluation or by Someone Who was actually responsible for it being there at all. So, instead of the Bible having to fit in with science, should it not be that science fits in with the Word of God that is the Bible? Therefore may I suggest that Moses was given the task of explaining the why's and whereoff's because bad science had already been at work among the peoples of the earth even since the fall of man. Wasn't Moses educated into that system by his upbringing to be a prince in Egypt who had more knowledge than most of his contemporaries and yet we read of him being a mumbler, a stutterer and a murderer to boot. Yet God had this man lead his people, his real people out of bondage which many in the sciences today refuse to accept even happened. Why is that?

[Cyclops]

conon394,

Are you OK? Are you really mellowing in your old age as I expected to be lambasted by you for my post? The point is that any science concerning the past can only be verified either by a world view of evaluation or by Someone Who was actually responsible for it being there at all. So, instead of the Bible having to fit in with science, should it not be that science fits in with the Word of God that is the Bible? Therefore may I suggest that Moses was given the task of explaining the why's and whereoff's because bad science had already been at work among the peoples of the earth even since the fall of man. Wasn't Moses educated into that system by his upbringing to be a prince in Egypt who had more knowledge than most of his contemporaries and yet we read of him being a mumbler, a stutterer and a murderer to boot. Yet God had this man lead his people, his real people out of bondage which many in the sciences today refuse to accept even happened. Why is that?

Old chap God didn't post the silly claim of a tablet dated to the lifetime of Noah etc. That was you.

History and science do not have to conform to your version of the world, rather if you insist that history and science actually support your view don't then turn around and condemn them when your mistake is demonstrated.

You are not God's spokesman here, you speak for your beliefs. I respect them but you can't expect people to drop their beliefs on your say-so.

[conon394]

conon394,

Are you OK? Are you really mellowing in your old age as I expected to be lambasted by you for my post? The point is that any science concerning the past can only be verified either by a world view of evaluation or by Someone Who was actually responsible for it being there at all. So, instead of the Bible having to fit in with science, should it not be that science fits in with the Word of God that is the Bible? Therefore may I suggest that Moses was given the task of explaining the why's and whereoff's because bad science had already been at work among the peoples of the earth even since the fall of man. Wasn't Moses educated into that system by his upbringing to be a prince in Egypt who had more knowledge than most of his contemporaries and yet we read of him being a mumbler, a stutterer and a murderer to boot. Yet God had this man lead his people, his real people out of bondage which many in the sciences today refuse to accept even happened. Why is that?

I thought I was being harsh at least on citing the hack, that you might not realize quit the scale of chain of poor scholarship that produced the claims about the clay tablet is understandable. I mean people still cite the propaganda miss reading of the Cyrus cylinder funded by the ex Shah of Iran.

The point is that any science concerning the past can only be verified either by a world view of evaluation or by Someone Who was actually responsible for it being there at all.

OK I suppose...

So, instead of the Bible having to fit in with science, should it not be that science fits in with the Word of God that is the Bible?

See no because you left something out..'Science' or 'History' etc do not start out claiming to be the word of God. Compare say Thucydides I do believe most of what he wrote is the very accurate the work of contemporary historian who aimed very much at accuracy. Why because his work is well known, well cited by near contemporaries, the quality of highly regarded. I trust it because in many cases we have whole or fragmentary bits of period laws and decrees that verify exactly what the man wrote. We know this because the archeology can show Athens did fight and lose a war at that time and did suffer a plague for example with corresponding and unusual mass graves. Do I trust him as the one word of truth. Nope because is also had verifiable biased and that can be demonstrated as well. Also because he died (or quite possibly was assassinated) before finishing the work. He makes some mistakes that are patently obvious but he himself notes that finding data a was difficult at best and almost impossible sometimes. So you would expect mistakes and some inaccuracy and being just a man aiming a History some personal bias. In other words a work of History by a historian that does not violate the the collection of observable data in manner so profound as to say he was inventing stuff.


With the Bible the basis problem remains that its stories - allegorical, explanations of the world, it OT laws etc simply do not pan out. They look like the work of a Semitic people trying to differentiate themselves fro a lot of similar peoples and using more or less the same toolbox od stories. They also look to have be re-edited over time to get to monotheism in a definatite way and try and provide some coherence.

Since you raise Moses the fact is there is no evidence that a nation of some 600,000 military aged males roamed around in the Sinai for decades. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence but sans any contradiction it starts to look pretty good..., but anyway a Nation that large would need no God at all to be free - it could simply own Egypt [you may not have a good handle on actual population numbers for the time but as a unified nation that is a male population that more or less owns whatever it wants unassuming it not lead by idiots and fools - compare it only took c30,000 Athenians to stay on message and page to defeat the Great King...]. I willing to allow the evidence of the Bible does seem to show that the those who did become the Levites did migrate to the 'holy land' in some fashion and probably violently imposed their ideology on their somewhat similar feeling brethren and some others not so much (on the similar and with more violence). But the simple fact is the best science says there are perhaps 4 different authorial groups of the OT has it exists and from 2 different traditions (the Levites winning).

No maybe you see the problem once you go all word of god the end product can't be examined in a rational way. One might assume that a all powerful being who crated everything would be able to hang to together a better story. I mean why could I face any of my wife's child births with the confidence that she likely would not did in the process? For most of human history the verifiable fact is that was not true (even for believers). Period. End. Carriage return. Yet supposedly the word of god is to be fruitful and multiply. Seems for most human history he made that difficult. God seems to be a bit a botch job on the Engineering part.

----

@NataliGog

Um bad posting of a link or picture??? I hope you were not aiming to just be annoying on a first post. That might look like a bot...

[basics]

Old chap God didn't post the silly claim of a tablet dated to the lifetime of Noah etc. That was you.

History and science do not have to conform to your version of the world, rather if you insist that history and science actually support your view don't then turn around and condemn them when your mistake is demonstrated.

You are not God's spokesman here, you speak for your beliefs. I respect them but you can't expect people to drop their beliefs on your say-so.

Cyclops,

It is written that God sustains all things by the power of His Word that Word being Jesus Christ so He knew before I wrote what I would write and what your answer would be. My post was off-Scripture yet related to Scripture however you are right in saying it was my post. History and science however do have to conform to the will of God and that is being played out before our very eyes just as the Bible says. The West is turning left whilst the leftist East is turning to God. Globalism and climate change have become the new gospel. It's all another phase in history where man thinks he is in control yet in Biblical language is the fulfilling of God's word in bringing in the end where Jesus comes back. Yes, it is what I believe not because i am me, rather because what is written. Think of it this way inasmuch as no matter what you buy or read of or even watch on TV there's always some sort of health warning and yet the greatest health warning that man has always had is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That's what I stand on.

[conon394]

OK basics nice statement of faith. Succinct at to the point.

There is no argument for that. However what does the science of climate change the economic/Political position inherent in 'globalism' (however you mean that) have do with believing or not believing in the the book of a strange local Semitic people. The book may well save you in the supposed after life but it does not guarantee much in the now while we are still living meat puppets so at least on the former issue I would prefer some action that does not involve muttering to the man in the sky.

[basics]

OK basics nice statement of faith. Succinct at to the point.

There is no argument for that. However what does the science of climate change the economic/Political position inherent in 'globalism' (however you mean that) have do with believing or not believing in the the book of a strange local Semitic people. The book may well save you in the supposed after life but it does not guarantee much in the now while we are still living meat puppets so at least on the former issue I would prefer some action that does not involve muttering to the man in the sky.

conon394,

The answer to that lies in what Paul told the Romans when he said that man worships the created rather than the Creator. Man thinks he can resolve just about anything and yet history has proved that he can't. In admitting that there is a " man " in the sky you're giving the game away that you do know there is a God but it's just that you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge Him for what He is and what He wants from you. There is no shame in muttering to God for although I might not hear or understand what is being said, God knows. The Book you talk of brought me to Christ and His saving grace and that same Book contains all that I need to continue on the road to more grace and love come hell or highwater. It could be yours too.

[Cyclops]

...
It is written that God sustains all things by the power of His Word that Word being Jesus Christ so He knew before I wrote what I would write and what your answer would be.

If God made this conversation, and knows everything that happens before it happens then it was God who sinned in Eden, God who tempted Eve, God who ate the apple and God who condemned all humans to suffer forever for something he made them do.

As for "it is written" the Bible contains a multitude of contradictions. We have talked it over

...My post was off-Scripture yet related to Scripture however you are right in saying it was my post..

"ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" John 8:31. Stick with Jesus and his sayings, leave the OT for the past. Even an unbeliever like me can see the teacher has a good message for good people. The letters? The Gospels? Humans wrote those too, and they even say they are not scripture, not Gods word (eg Paul in 1 Corinthians 12 "to the rest speak I, not the Lord" and 25 "Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgement...". Paul himself states not all of his writing is Gods word. Scripture says scripture itself says it is not all Gods word. Why should science and history bow to Paul's opinion?

[basics]

Cyclops,

And that is described in terms of the Potter who makes things for value and no value. God is Sovereign over all things why? Because all things belong to Him, including me and you so what we do is subject to His will in a story that is primarily about Him. That story is about His creation falling into sin and Him being the only factor in changing that situation. To blame God is what every creature has said at one time or another because the curse makes us that way but nonetheless God has made it so that our attitudes on that score can be changed and He plays the major role in that.

The point is my friend that there are no good people for all have fallen short of the glory of God meaning that in every case He is dealing with people He sees as not good but as sinners. The Old Testament is important because it's a history of not just one particular nation but of its struggles with others as well. Yes the israelites were given the Oracles of God and in their diasporas have carried those to the nations whose gods were missrepresentations of the Only God and His saviour. The thing is that these writings all pointed to Jesus Christ yet even that nation kept on losing the plot throughout time and to this very day most still cannot see it. As Paul explained things given the knowledge that God imbued to him, he could see from his own personal understanding and so makes that differential but it never contradicts what God has given him to say. It only adds to our understanding without actually adding to the Scripture, rather confirming it, as I do myself and being condemned for it. Put it this way, if the Gospels were all exactly the same, God would have been accused of a stitchup. Giving them to write in their own expressive manner what He wants them to write only adds to the value in each of the Gospels because they're expressing the same message without contradiction.

[Cyclops]

.. they're expressing the same message without contradiction.

They give different dates for the Last Supper (John says its Passover Eve, the synoptics say its Passover). Which one is right?

This is an either/or answer. You don't need to tell me about your faith, please just tell me which Gospel gave the wrong information about the date of the Last Supper.

[basics]

They give different dates for the Last Supper (John says its Passover Eve, the synoptics say its Passover). Which one is right?

This is an either/or answer. You don't need to tell me about your faith, please just tell me which Gospel gave the wrong information about the date of the Last Supper.

Cyclops,

The Passover feast lasted for seven or eight days so neither would be wrong in the same sense that we regard Xmas Eve to be as important as Xmas Day. That I don't know the exact dates doesn't matter to me because the fact that the event is authenticated by more than one explanation is enough for me to believe what happened during the feast Days. These are good questions that I am not learned enough to answer as precisely another more learned might do but it is sufficient for me that they happened and for me to believe that they happened.

[TheLeft]

Anyone found any talking snakes yet? No? Funny that... it's almost as if they don't exist...