- This topic has 899 replies, 46 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Samuel,
It is oversimplification to say the Bible is right or wrong for a variety of reasons:
Which Bible? There are many versions.
The Bible (of any version) is not a book but a collection of books, letters, songs, poems, and prophecies written by different, mostly anonymous authors in different languages over long periods of time and collected by
religious leaders acting under the mandate of a Roman Emperor.It is only right or wrong if one looks upon the body as a unified document of literal truth and disregard, symbolism, allegory and parable. In that case there are so many faults and inconsistencies that this conclusion seems mistaken.
Quote (Samuel @ Mar. 28 2008,09:05) The Bible is it wrong? It has not been proven to be wrong yet.
Do you mean as a whole, or certain parts? With each archeological find, it beceomes apparent that certain stories in the OT are incorrect. Not wrong necessarily in all parts, but likely highly embellished.For instance, there is no singular bit of evidence that the Israelites wandered in the desert for 40 years. The places they were to have travelled have been scoured and nothing has ever turned up to indicate any sizable group was anywhere where the bible says they were.
There are several other examples, but that's one of the top of my head.
No more than I cannot prove Harry Potter is real if someone believes in it. If lack of evidence beyond something in a book can equal reality we are free to believe in anything as long as someone is willing to write about it.
If you are open-minded, pick this book up: The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts . Here is the review from Publishers Weekly on the book (from the link above):
- Finkelstein, director of Tel Aviv University's excavations at Megiddo (ancient Armageddon), and Silberman, author of a series of successful and intriguing books on the political and cultural dimensions of archeology, present for the first time to a general audience the results of recent research, which reveals more clearly that while the Bible may be the most important piece of Western literature–serving concrete political, cultural and religious purposes–many of the events recorded in the Old Testament are not historically accurate. Finkelstein and Silberman do not aim to undermine the Bible's import, but to demonstrate why it became the basic document for a distinct religious community under particular political circumstances. For example, they maintain that the Exodus was not a single dramatic event, as described in the second book of the Bible, but rather a series of occurrences over a long period of time. The Old Testament account is, according to the authors, neither historical truth nor literary fiction, but a powerful expression of memory and hope constructed to serve particular political purposes at the time it was composed. The authors claim quite convincingly that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah became radically different regions even before the time of King David; the northern lands were densely populated, with a booming agriculture-based economy, while the southern region was sparsely populated by migratory pastoral groups. Furthermore, they contend, “we still have no hard archaeological evidence–despite the unparalleled biblical description of its grandeur–that Jerusalem was anything more than a modest highland village in the time of David, Solomon, and Rehoboam.” Fresh, stimulating and highly engaging, this book will hold greatest appeal for readers familiar with the Bible, in particular the Old Testament–unfortunately, a shrinking percentage of the population. 16 pages of b&w photos not seen by PW. Agent, Carol Mann.
A personal reviewer on that page says (it can be found in the book too)
- There is good reason to believe that the Exodus never happened. Had migrants to the number of even a small fraction of the 600,000 claimed in the Bible truly sojourned in the Sinai Peninsula for 40 years, archaeological evidence of their passage would be abundant. In fact, there are no traces of any signifant group living in the Sinai at the supposed time of the Exodus.
Hi KJ,
It is easy to find stones to throw at the way of God.
The roads are littered with such stones.
Men hate God and His way.Nick,
As usual you are saying God = bible. The bible is the record of a certain people and the retelling of many of their legends. That includes the NT as the authors of the gospels wrote 40-70 years after Jesus. So they were just telling the legend of Jesus. Often, legends are embellished as you know.
As to the OT, when archeology shows much of the bible did not happen in the way it was written, what are you left with? In the NT, when no one spoke of Jesus outside of the bible and other writings that were considered heretical (and giving different recollections of Jesus) what are you left with?
I know, I know: faith. But that is all it is, and it does not hold up well to scrutiny. A blind man can believe an orange is purple, and someone with blind faith can believe anything they want just because some book said so. Just don't be so surprised that others who use God given reason might call much of that book in doubt.
Hi KJ,
Your way does not require faith.
But your reasonings are vain and insulting to God.
You have become a warning to others not to take such a path.Hi Kj,
Seek ye first the kingdom of God and all things will be added to you.
That includes knowledge and understanding.
Otherwise you may judge God.Quote (Stu @ Mar. 28 2008,13:42) Quote (kejonn @ Mar. 29 2008,06:33) Why did you delete my post Nick?
What did you post kejonn?Stuart
I asked him about how he worships. He has never answered me although I have asked him several times. I feel like I'm playing dodgeball.Hi Nick
Quote It is easy to find stones to throw at the way of God.
Yes, just quote the OT.Quote Men hate God and His way.
If your god existed, I would share that hatred.Quote But your reasonings are vain and insulting to God.
If your god gave you a logical brain then is it more insulting to use it or to not use it?2 Cor 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
…would seem to sum up the extent of your posting.Stuart
Quote Stu: If you define them to mean exactly one year or exactly two weeks, or goodness me, ‘one day’ then they do not match science. Stu: “day”
1. 24 hour period
2. day as in night and day
3. general period of time as in “grandfather's day.”
4. Epoch.stu, it appears that the days of creations were epochs of time.
1. The period of light between dawn and nightfall; the interval from sunrise to sunset.
2.
a. The 24-hour period during which the earth completes one rotation on its axis.
b. The period during which a celestial body makes a similar rotation.
3. Abbr. D One of the numbered 24-hour periods into which a week, month, or year is divided.
4. The portion of a 24-hour period that is devoted to work, school, or business: an eight-hour day; a sale that lasted for three days.
5. A 24-hour period or a portion of it that is reserved for a certain activity: a day of rest.
6.
a. A specific, characteristic period in one's lifetime: In Grandmother's day, skirts were long.
b. A period of opportunity or prominence: Every defendant is entitled to a day in court. That child will have her day.
7. A period of time in history; an era: We studied the tactics used in Napoleon's day. The day of computer science is well upon us.
8. days Period of life or activity: The sick cat's days will soon be over.“a period of time in history.” True, not very specific, but then, neither is the word “day.”
Quote Quote Since you can redefine Genesis in the way you want then it means nothing at all. –stu.
I'm not “redefining” anything. Check a dictionary. If your previous interpretations of genesis were wrong based on your wanting the Bible to be wrong, what of it?
Quote I also remember the message of that book being distorted out of shape in the process. –stu (a couple pages back)
With so many possible definitions of “day” this “means nothing at all” as you say. Yet, you had accused me of distorting something.
Science tells us that those things took eons of time. One defiiniton of “day” is “a period of time in history.”
Guess what? Although it doesn't say much and isn't specific, it in no way contradicts science. As it turns out, it only contradicts what you wanted to believe.
Quote And tell me about that firmament. Does science agree with that too? It doesn't disagree with any known law of science, does it? Explain how it does.
What? Water being held up in the air? Insanity!Some translations use the word “firmament” instead of “expanse.” From this the argument is made that the Genesis account borrowed from creation myths that represent this “firmament” as a metal dome. But even the King James Version Bible, which uses “firmament,” says in the margin, “expansion.”
This is because the Hebrew word ra·qi′a‛, translated “expanse,” means to stretch out or spread out or expand.
The Genesis account says that God did it, but it does not say how. In whatever way the described separation occurred, it would look as though the ‘waters above’ had been pushed up from the earth. And birds could later be said to fly in “the expanse of the heavens,” as stated at Genesis 1:20.
Long before Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.), who believed that the stars were driven into the sky like nails, Genesis (1:6-8) described the heavenly vault as an “expanse” (New World Translation), or “firmament” (Douay Version). The word “firmament” comes from the Latin firmare, which means to give consistency, to make firm, or solid. Jerome used this expression in the Latin Vulgate in translating the Hebrew word raqia that, to the contrary, means “extended surface,” “expanse.” According to T. Moreux, former head of Bourges Observatory, France, “this expanse, which to us constitutes heaven, is designated in the Hebrew text by a word which the [Greek] Septuagint, influenced by the cosmological ideas prevailing at the time, translated by stereoma, firmament, solid canopy. Moses transmits no such thought. The Hebrew word raqia only conveys the idea of extent or, better still, expanse.” The Bible has therefore described, most accurately, the expanse or atmosphere above us.
The first chapter of Genesis was far ahead of contemporary conceptions.
Genesis speaks of luminaries that shine upon the earth “to make a division between the light and the darkness.” (Gen. 1:14-18) Now, those words were written by Moses in the 16th century before our Common Era. Note just one of the fanciful conceptions then existing on this subject. Paul Couderc, astronomer at the Paris Observatory, writes: “Up until the fifth century before our common era, men were mistaken as regards the fundamental question concerning day and night. For them, light was a bright vapor, while darkness was a black vapor which, in the evening, ascended from the ground.” What a contrast with the succinct but scientifically accurate statement made in the Bible concerning the cause of day and night on our planet!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
