The Biblical Account is Self-Authenticating and Self-Attesting
One of the major problems that we all have (in fact, it’s the same problem Adam and Eve had in the Garden of Eden) is that we tend to start from outside God's Word and then go to what God has written in the Bible (or—in Adam's case—what God forbade him to do) to try to interpret it on the basis of our own pre-set ideas. This is the major reason why most people question the length of the days of creation in the book of Genesis.
If the Bible is the inspired Word of the infinite Creator God, then it must be self-authenticating and self-attesting—and it is. At the same time, my presupposition is that we should start with what God's Word says regardless of outside ideas, for only God's Word is infallible.
If people doubt the length of the days of creation when the language of the Bible speaks so plainly that they are regular days, then they are accepting a particular approach to all of Scripture. Why shouldn't they then start to doubt that Christ's Virgin Birth really means a virgin birth? Why shouldn't people start to doubt that the Resurrection really means resurrection?
The major reason why people doubt that the days of creation are 24-hour literal days usually has nothing to do with what the Bible says, but comes from outside influences. For example, many believe that because scientists have supposedly proved the earth to be billions of years old, then the days of creation cannot be ordinary days.
When people use Scripture to justify that the days of creation are long periods of time, they usually quote passages such as 2 Peter 3:8 , “ ... one day is with the Lord as a thousand years ...” . Therefore, they think the creation days could be a thousand years, or perhaps even millions of years. However, if you look at the rest of the verse, it says, “ and a thousand years as one day.” This cancels out their argument!
The context of this passage concerns the Second Coming of Christ. This particular verse is telling readers that with God, waiting a day is like waiting a thousand years, and waiting a thousand years is like waiting a day because God is outside of time—He is not limited by natural processes and time.
So this passage has absolutely nothing to do with defining the days of creation. Furthermore, there is no reference in this 2 Peter passage to the days of creation.
The Hebrew word for day in Genesis chapter 1 is the word yom. It is important to understand that almost any word can have two or more meanings, depending on context. We need to understand the context of the usage of this word in Genesis chapter 1.
Respected Hebrew dictionaries, like Brown, Driver, Briggs, and also Koehler and Baumgartner, give a number of meanings for the word yom depending upon context. One of the passages that both lexicons give for yom meaning an ordinary day happens to be Genesis chapter 1. The reason is obvious. Every time the word yom is used with a number, or with the phrase “evening and morning,” anywhere in the Old Testament, it always means an ordinary day. In Genesis chapter 1, for each of the six days of creation, the Hebrew word yom is used with a number and the phrase, “evening and morning.” There is no doubt that the writer is being emphatic that these are ordinary days.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
very nice publish, i actually love this web site, carry on it ab workouts impregnate best hcg leucocytopoiesis har tips Dodecahedron virility foetal
You made some respectable factors there. I seemed on the web for the problem and found most people will go together with along with your website. Buy Facebook Likes Webster How to make puppy gain weight perihelion
While AIG tries to defend Genesis with the weakest possible argument, Answers in Creation explain Genesis I in a way that gives it a literal interpretation that is still in line with science .
http://www.answersincreation.org/genesis1.htm
Everything I say is correct, regardless of logic or evidence that attempts to prove me wrong. And I say the Earth wasn't created in six days.
See how that works? That's basically what you said, just with the Bible. Sorry, doesn't work.
The Bible is true because the Bible says so is incredibly juvenile logic.
AiG argues that pretexts brought by the reader are to blame for difficulties accepting The Bible as literal truth. But, since The Bible is rendered as a text written in human language, it cannot be entirely self-authenticating. The reader must bring at least her understanding of that language in order to be able to interpret the printed word. Every reading of The Bible is colored the reader's understanding of the language, not to mention by the translator's abilities and proclivities in preparing the particular edition being read. Therefore, everyone who reads The Bible (or anything else, for that matter) must necessarily project a bit of themselves, including their prejudices, into the narrative.
AiG may have been trying to say that, rather than finding the flaws, one should strain to hear the truth in the scripture. But this particular argument, proceeding as it does from an absurd premise, does not hold up.
Creationist scientists are not hard to come by. Even Darwin believed in a Supreme Being. If there is a god out there, and He made everything, then wouldn't it stand to reason that He made the laws of nature? If that is the case, wouldn't it be reasonable to consider the possibility that just maybe He might create the Earth in a time and fashion after the manner of the very laws He created?
Our understanding of a day is usually 24 hours. But when you get right down to it, a "day" is merely the time it takes for the Earth to rotate on it's axis. Maybe God was busy keeping time based on the rotational axis of another planet, or a star? If that is the case, and said planet was a lot heftier than the Earth, than a "day" to God could have been any number of years or millenia to us. It's all about how you interpret it. The scientists and creationists can both be right on this one.
A day is like a thousand years, and a thousand like a day - please compare and contrast that true statement about time (as measured by God, and documented by one of His children) with the idea that it had to be a literal six days. In the time it takes to read this sentence, I could have walked away from the keyboard, poured a cup of coffee, returned, and thought long and hard about how I would phrase my next sentence - so it is with God in His being outside of time. That which measures all things must, of necessity, be greater than all things being measured, no?
As an aside, my faith does not rest on whether it was a literal six days, or an indeterminate amount of time (as we measure time) that is recorded as being of six days duration - nor should that alone be used as a litmus test.
after the entire cain and able thing, the brother left to another group of people to find a wife....but a litteral reading of the bible does not allow there to be other people. this is because in my opinion every religion's creation story is the creation story of THEIR people.
If a people live on an island with a volcano you can be certain fire and lava will be given as evidence of their God's expression. If their cculture tells it's own story from an austere desert, you may be certain that it's laws from God will reflect the severity of the conditions around them. The Egyptian's Gods demonstrated cyclicalness in every aspect of their human discription as the Nile's cyclical swelling was THE essence of their survival.
In the same manner, religions can become mutated by it's authors. God takes on the behavior of a Ceasar once Ceasar co-opted the bible. Popes read into the Bible and extend the reality of the narrative's interpretation in ways that resemble exactly how history sees them. If a pope was self agrandizing and greedy for power, God become increasingly so.
Read a little anthropology and one quickly realises that the devil as described by each in the Bible reflects EXACTLY the specific negatives being experienced by those who are believed to have actually penned each of the gospels at the time such things, by all evidence available, were first commited to paper. If the evil the group faced was a persecutorial leader....then the qualities of the devil described by them resemble the cruelty of the leader. if the advesary was a cultural bias against the gospel sources group, the details of evil resemble this.
On several side notes; If Jesus agreed with all of God's laws then he HAD to kill the adultress rather than get away with the "let he who is without sin" thing. If this were an example to follow, we should enact NO judgement on anyone. except the Bible does not allow us to ignore it's laws, so we MUST stone people as prescribed....right?
If God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the apple, he would have had to have imparted to them the seriousness of doing so and the concequences. but they did not know of right and wrong yet. how could they have known that eating the apple was wrong? A threat of pain? pain was something they never knew.
we have free will right? it is not free will if we are threatened with damnation. that is extortion.
The story of creation, man inparticular is best read as insight the authors found, divine or not. what we do know from personal experience is that Man at some point in our evolution , divinely guided or not, is most different from the animals because we ARE capable of harming needlessly, doing things which are short sighted, eating crud, making and then inhaling smog....we are no longer biological robots, mating when spring arrives, migrating when the sun gets lower and lower in the sky.
If god is perfect then why did he let the devil loose on man?
If God has a plan and knows evrything why do so many people feel they have the right to doubt Gods plan by asking for things? Anything! This description of God is either one of a selfish Ceasar like God where we should beg and plead but he will doe as he wishes anyway and we should be thankful no matter the turn of events or people are wrong in their actions and prayer should be for thanks and appology only.
God is more than humans can comprehend. No two persons experience the divine the same even if they are of the same faith and subsect of that faith. All that we can know about evil is that it is experienced by us as that which destroys Life. Life as we know it is not simply whether something is breathing, it is the ability to unfold, continue to express. Be it a spieces becoming another over time or a person being allowed to find his or her self....to have options in this existance open. Suppression of Life are seen in poverty, shame created by a selfish culture, war, greed, violence All anyone can say for certain if they believe in God is that God creates. That is all we can see for certain from this side of the screen.
Many people claim that certain writings are the Word of God.
The Samaritans believe that their version of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy is the Word of God.
Jews believe that the Masoretic text is the written Word of God.
Protestant Christians add the 27 books of the New Testament to the Hebrew scriptures and believe that this is the Word of God.
Catholics add to this the Apocrypha and believe that this is the Word of God.
Orthodox Christians add to this some other material and believe that this is the Word of God.
Muslims regard the above scriptures as corrupted and accept the Qur'an as the true Word of God.
The prophet Jeremiah said, ""How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie." (Jeremiah 8:8, English Standard Version).
It is impossible to know which, if any, of these contradictory opinions is true. The fact that people believe that they are right proves nothing.
M. Glass
I don't see what is so hard about it. I will start be quoting a bible verse.
I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me? Jeremiah 32:27
Now one has ever convinced me that I should take anything other than the literal view of the bible. If you truly want to find a great relationship with God, just believe Him.
The root of the problem has to do with your view of God. Is He a weak God, or is He a God who can do anything. There is not good reason to believe otherwise.
Flip
Your stating what you believe, not what can be demonstrated scientifically.
Logically what is the difference between your quote of the Bible and a Buddhist's quote of the Diamond Sutra? or a Muslims quote of the Koran?
I've do not have any issues with your beliefs... but I do question their use in a scientific context.
Tell me, Have you ever read the "Origin of the Species"? I have and I find it to be a pretty far stretch. The whole theory of Evolution is based on that book, and I do mean theory. For something to go beyond a theory, it has to be proven beyond and shadow of a doubt. Evolution has never been proven to that point. Just as you say that creation cannot be proven by science.
My question is this: Is a Scientist who studies Evolution more credible than one studying Creation? What if they both have the same Credentials, the same degrees, the same experience, but one is studying creation and one evolution ? Which one is More credible?
I can answer that based on what I have gotten from another debate on this issue. Most in that debate said that the one studying evolution was more credible than the one studying evolution.
"Tell me, Have you ever read the "Origin of the Species"? I have and I find it to be a pretty far stretch. The whole theory of Evolution is based on that book, and I do mean theory."
The theory of Evolution is not based on OotS, that is just the book that 'first' put for the idea. It is also a theory that we can observe in action then test.
"For something to go beyond a theory, it has to be proven beyond and shadow of a doubt."
Actually no... There is nothing in science beyond a theory. Some theories are now known as laws due to how rigorously they have been tested, but that does not mean that they are absolutely perfect or beyond reproach.
Evolution is just a theory, though one with a great deal of evidence backing it up... where is the evidence for a 6 day creation?
"My question is this: Is a Scientist who studies Evolution more credible than one studying Creation? What if they both have the same Credentials, the same degrees, the same experience, but one is studying creation and one evolution ? Which one is More credible?"
One would have to look at their research and methodologies to determine which one was found more credible.
"Most in that debate said that the one studying evolution was more credible than the one studying evolution."
Yes, because the evidence for evolution, and a 4.5 billion year old earth, is far stronger then the evidence for creationism . To be seen as credible a creationist would have to demonstrate how their theory was better at describing what we observe then the current theories.
All this is hard to understand. I was once where you are at. I did not believe any of it. I found myself wrong on everything. The truth is not something man has much of in his nature. What man has not lied once or twice? The answer is none.
There supposedly is scientific evidence for both beliefs......so who do you belief?
My logic is there is no good reason to not believe in 6 days as the bible says.
As I stated above, I 'believe' neither side. Logically the evidence points to the 4.5 billion year creation that is the common consensus.
If everyone lies then how can you say that the Bible is absolute truth after being copied and translated for thousands of years?
It has been translated for about six thousand years. I do not know how their system worked but the dead sea scrolls were identical to the written word.
I told you earlier that I did not always believe in God the way He wants us to believe in Him. I believed there was a God, but that was the end of it. What other records are there that are six thousand years old besides the Bible. No one has ever been able to prove the Bible wrong. Many have tried and many have found a relationship with God the Creator because of it.
I don't know everything, but what I do know is by life experience, Why would a God as great as he is take 4.5 billion years to create the earth when there is nothing to difficult for Him. Time means nothing to God. Some things are a mystery for sure, but that is why it takes faith to please God.
"It has been translated for about six thousand years. I do not know how their system worked but the dead sea scrolls were identical to the written word."
The Dead Sea scrolls are little more then two thousand years old, but then how does that age 'prove' the Bible is true, or that it is six thousand years old? And which version of the Bible are we talking about? The KJV? The Latin text? The Greek text? What about the books that are not found in current translations (Book of Enoch, Gospel of Thomas, or any of the other Apocrypha texts).
"What other records are there that are six thousand years old besides the Bible. No one has ever been able to prove the Bible wrong. Many have tried and many have found a relationship with God the Creator because of it"
What evidence is there that places the age of the Bible at six thousand years (Hebrew did not appear until around 1000 BC, the oldest 'complete' texts being the aforementioned Dead Sea scrolls at 200 BC, and the oldest surviving fragment originating from ~600 BC). Coincidentally, negative proof is a rather tricky thing. Saying that something is true because there is no proof that it is false is a logical fallacy... If I say that since there is no proof that unicorns did not exist then they existed, would you say that that is a reasonable argument?
"I don't know everything, but what I do know is by life experience, Why would a God as great as he is take 4.5 billion years to create the earth when there is nothing to difficult for Him. Time means nothing to God. Some things are a mystery for sure, but that is why it takes faith to please God."
If time means nothing to God then why would it matter to God if it took 4.5 billion years to create the earth? "Why would God take 4.5 billion years..." is also not a scientific argument, its not really any sort of argument. The evidence, as presented (astronomical, geological, archeological) all points back past 6k years, what is the evidence that contradicts this?
You are an intellectual and people like you have the hardest time believing anything, let alone trying to intellectualize the bible or God or anything like it.
The truth is in order to understand the creator God you will need to have the Born Again experience. After that than it is easier to understand because then you have a true relationship with Him. I admit it is difficult to wrap your mind around, I had the same problem.
It's easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle then it is a rich man to get into heaven.
The same applies to intellectuals. When things are as simple as True Christianity is, it will be hard for a person like you to understand. One day I hope you will.
Flip
"After that than it is easier to understand because then you have a true relationship with Him."
Hilarious. In other words, nonsense is "easier to understand" if it's part of a religious faith. Well, you can understand why there have been two Supreme Court rulings against "creation science " religious nonsense. Fortunately, the First Amendment prevents this religious nonsense from being taught in public schools.
You do realize that, from a logical standpoint, the 'Born Again' argument is the same as those who claim that they can read minds... but when asked to demonstrate say that their powers only work on those who are open minded?
"The truth is in order to understand the creator God you will need to have the Born Again experience."
In other words, the creator god only makes sense to those who have an invested interest in their understanding of the creator god. Convenient!
Not exactly as you put it. There is enough evidence in creation itself so that you are without excuse in believing. I am not trying to beat you up here, because I was at the same place at one time.
What I mean is that you can understand enough to believe, but to understand totally the Born
again experience is a special transaction between you and God and the Truth comes through that experience. In other words things begin to make more sense. It is not easy to understand I know, but an open mind will help.
Go here and maybe you understand me better. My life story:http://FlipParker.com
Thank you for posting a link to your life story. Such genuine expression is rare out here on the internet. However, I hope you will listen to my story. My goal is not to convert you. Indeed, if you truly find happiness, peace, and contentment in Christianity, then you have every reason to stay where you are. My goal is to make you stop and consider others' beliefs. We're all fellow travelers on life's journey, and understanding those beliefs is the key to understanding other people.
I was once where you are. I was raised in a Christian family, and I was particularly religious through my early adulthood. In my college years, a combination of events forced me to stop and re-examine several minor tenets of my Christian faith. Once I realized how wrong my religious leaders could be on such tangential issues, suddenly every belief was open to debate. I searched myself for every belief that lay unquestioned, and I sought to understand people who disagreed with each. Some arguments were convincing; others were not. This eventually lead me to where I am today: a vegetarian, libertarian, humanitarian, non-religious skeptic who runs Linux. :) That destination may not work for everyone, but I'm much happier here than I was as a Christian.
Every religion has a creation story, and every religious person has just as much reason to believe theirs as you have to believe yours. Even though these creation stories are not historic fact, they are all expressions of the underlying beliefs in each society and therefore valuable and true. Wikipedia has a page that summarizes several of these creation myths:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
More to the topic, scientists have innumerable good reasons to accept the theory of evolution and ancient age of the universe. You keep alluding to evidence and proof in creation, but there is none that still stands in contradiction to these dominant theories. An outside designer is not necessary to explain the biodiversity we observe today on our planet. If this subject interests you, I can direct you to articles that summarize these theories and explain how we came to accept them. For instance, the following is an excellent piece by a Christian on radiometric dating, and Dr. Kenneth Miller has written several books on evolution from a Christian perspective.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html
Believe me when I tell you I have been through many things that try to disprove Christianity. I could tell you many stories. It takes so much more faith to believe evolution than just believing in creation.
There had to be millions of random events to produce what our world is today. How the planets hang in space. How the earth is just the exact distance from the Sun. How the earth is tilted on it's axis.
Evolution just doesn't do it for me........to many holes.
I tried so hard not to believe I found myself believing. Does that make sense?
It seems that you were religious or tried to be instead of being a true Christian. There are millions of people who have made religion out of Christianity. True Christianity is not religion at all. The Christians who make a religion out of it never have a Born Again experience. There is a big difference it you care to hear it
Here is a link for you if you care to read the other side: http://www.icr.org/Evidence /
Sorry but I do not know how to make the link clickable. Maybe you could tell me.
It does not require any faith to accept the theory of evolution . Everything we know about evolution is supported by observations from independent disciplines of science. It is true that the outcome of evolution is effectively the summation of many small random events. It is also true that, were it possible to rewind the clock and allow life on Earth to evolve again, humans almost certainly would not emerge as a dominant species. Dr. Kenneth Miller discusses the religious consequences of this implication in his books; evolution is not necessarily incompatible with Christianity.
You mention properties of the Earth while discussing evolution. While these are certainly closely related, remember that the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the properties of our planet. Darwin's theory explains the emergence of biodiversity, and it explains why we fit our environment so well.
But cosmology does offer an explanation for our planet. As improbable as the conditions of our planet are, there are plenty of opportunities for nature to get it right. Just the observable portion of our universe has between 30 and 70 billion trillion stars, each of which could have planets, and the universe may be significantly larger than that. (The galaxies we can observe must exist in our past light cone. Search Wikipedia for "causal contact.") Also remember that not every attribute of the Earth is essential for life. There may be other unknown arrangements that are hospitable to life. Subterranean liquid oceans on a moon is just one possible example. The odds of planets somewhere being hospitable to life are actually quite good.
I glanced through the ICR page that you provided. Is there any particular claim you wanted me to see? None that I saw are new to me, and I don't have time to respond here to all of them.
I did not consider myself a religious Christian. I may use that term to describe my past experience now, but at the time I though "religiousness" was a great threat to true Christianity.
It seems that you have all the answers, but remember, the answers you have, come from men. There has been many scientist who have lied for money. Like they found a body a million years old.
The truth is right there in front of you and all I can say is that I will pray that someday you will see it.
God Bless You,
Flip
I certainly don't claim to have all the answers, because I know I don't.
It should go without saying that everything you know about Christianity came from humans too. Unless you received a visit from god himself recounting his 144-hour creation, you learned about this creation story from your religious leaders. At best, they were interpreting a religious text that was printed, translated, compiled, and copied for centuries by other men.
Humans are certainly fallible, religious leaders and scientists alike, but there's one critical difference in the sciences: peer review. If a scientist falsified their conclusions for money, as you asserted, they would be shunned out of the field by peers who attempted to duplicate the results in vain. It's important to distinguish peer-reviewed journals from scientific journalism in the popular press. The former is a far more reliable source of scientific information.
That is another difference between religion and Christianity. God does speak to his people. We talk to Him in prayer and He does answer. It is a miracle. By experience when I ask I receive the answer. I have never heard an audible voice like some have, but the answer just shows up in your mind and heart. You just know it wasn't you that thought of it. I have had that happen many times in my 27 years as a Christian. If you are just a religious Christian it's not going to happen for you.
Again you can not experience this without the Born Again Experience. That's why I say you will never understand it all without being a True Christian. It's seems that you are still not a closed minded person and can still see the truth if you find it. Take a look, read John Chapter 3 of the bible.
Talk to you later. PS It's the best way I can explain it. I know it's hard to believe, I've been there.
Feeper: do you realize that scientists have been able to create spiritual experiences through simple interaction with the human brain?
There is much scientific evidence to proof it, it's just that you wouldn't believe it anyway. The problem being that there isn't much proof in what men say anyway. Which of us hasn't lied once or twice. The answer is no one. So how can you believe what any man says.
The bible is the only record of creation and the scribes kept near perfect records by their mathematical system. So by faith I believe it. God chose the Jews for many reasons, but one was to keep track of His relationship with man and write it down.
I do not 'believe' in science. I see it as a rational way to understand the world. I do not believe that if I drop a pencil that it will fall, I just know that according to gravitational theories that if I hold a pencil up then let go that it will be pulled towards the largest concentration of mass (which happens to be the earth).
If I did hold up a pencil, let it go, and it did not fall then that would not change my beliefs... I'd just examine the situation to see what was keeping it from acting as expected. My beliefs do not enter into it.
It's the same for the current scientifically accepted theories about the origins of the earth. I've read through the theories and the evidence, and I agree with the common consensus about the age and creation of the earth.
You believe in Biblical Genesis, but I've yet to see any evidence to support it... or to give it more credence then the Egyptian, Native American, or Viking creation stories.
You state that everyone lies, but then go on to say that you trust one group of scribes out of all the others. How does their mathematical system lead to near perfect records?
"One of the major problems that we all have (in fact, it’s the same problem Adam and Eve had in the Garden of Eden) is that we tend to start from outside God's Word and then go to what God has written in the Bible (or—in Adam's case—what God forbade him to do) to try to interpret it on the basis of our own pre-set ideas. This is the major reason why most people question the length of the days of creation in the book of Genesis."
Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence, including the claim that the Bible is the Word of God. It is dishonest to claim that those who reject or even question the Bible's dogmas are doing so because of "pre-set ideas". A common fallacy of bigots is to claim that their opponents are also bigoted. This is a smokescreen.
"If the Bible is the inspired Word of the infinite Creator God, then it must be self-authenticating and self-attesting—and it is. At the same time, my presupposition is that we should start with what God's Word says regardless of outside ideas, for only God's Word is infallible."
Nonsense! NOTHING is self-authenticating. You would never say anything else was, so why make an exception for the Bible? Especially considering the existence of other religious texts, most of whom you would DENY because of your faith in the Bible. And the followers of other faiths, in turn, would deny the Bible because of THEIR faith.
"If people doubt the length of the days of creation when the language of the Bible speaks so plainly that they are regular days, then they are accepting a particular approach to all of Scripture. Why shouldn't they then start to doubt that Christ's Virgin Birth really means a virgin birth? Why shouldn't people start to doubt that the Resurrection really means resurrection?"
There is clear evidence for a universe and Earth billions of years old and for the evolution of life and thus good reason to deny a literal reading of the Genesis creation stories. There is no evidence to outright deny the Virgin Birth of Christ or His Resurrection. Those who put their faith in Genesis more than in Jesus have no business calling themselves Christians.
The first problem with the debate question is that neither time nor space exists per se. Then comes the definition of units of time, such as “a day.” Neither of these points was apparent in earlier times when the myths date from. But even though it is also still true that science most probably does not have clear or even close answers in cosmology today (the big bang theory works pretty good, but the big splat theory has not been eliminated, and then there is understanding dark matter and dark energy and there possible implications) it does not mean that any theory or myth is as valid as any other.
Using biblical myths as anything other than analogies is disrespectful of religion and reduces its potential value to society. At the vary lest it make religion unnecessarily subject to discrediting and rejection when science proves here to fore believed “facts” unlikely, improbable or just plain wrong.
"If the Bible is the inspired Word of the infinite Creator God, then it must be self-authenticating and self-attesting—and it is."
This means we have to compare scripture with scripture to get at the correct interpretation.
The Bible we now have is not complete. Not even close to complete. Paul said: "we know in part and we prophecy in part; but when that is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away." Jesus is that which is perfect. The living Word of God. Again the apostle said: " If every thing Jesus did and said were written down, the world itself could not contain the books.
So people who think they can know it all, from the tiny amount in the Bible are holding themselves in religious ignorance. Just like the Scribes and Pharisees did when Jesus brought fresh insight on what the Word really said.
FIRST of all YOU are sriritualy diserned from understanding until GOD moves upon your, HEART /MIND / CORE being...It is called CONVICTION, comming only from GOD's SPIRIT ...(INTERACTION) ...THE law,(COMMANDMENTS)were only given for MANKIND to see or conclude he NEEDS a SALVATION PLAN before GOD -MUST-/ administer the "JUSTICE" required for HIM to remain, GOD....THESE LAWS are something set up in ETERNITY past that must be followed to mantain GOD or ETERNITY or what ever, & is deemed neccessary for existance...THEY just are not arbitrary issues off the cuff ,so to speak...THEY are manditory for existance...IN all REALMS of ETERNITY...PREREQUISITS, if you will...
"Answers in Genesis" avoids doing the one thing that might actually lead them to understand the Biblical text: studying genuine, up-to-date, Biblical scholarship that reflects a genuine desire to understand the text rather than impose one's predetermined conclusions on it.
Not only is the Bible not self-authenticating, but no one comes to the Bible as a blank slate without other influences.
Biblical literalism is a PR exercise. Groups like Answers in Genesis claim to believe the whole Bible and take it all literally because it persuades people who do not examine the basis for their claim. Those who do find that in fact AiG and other groups like it are making false claims. They don't take the dome in Genesis 1 literally. They never argue that one needs to believe that Yahweh created by combatting the sea monster (called Leviathan or Rahab in the Bible). Their literalism is a selective on.
Moreover, Biblical scholarship has long noted that the days in Genesis 1(literal days consisting of evening and morning as per Jewish reckoning) are arranged in a poetic parallelism, with days 1-3 creating habitats that are then filled with life on days 4-6.
The issue is not simply ignoring science. Answers in Genesis ignores the Bible, and yet claims to be based in the Bible. Where I come from, we call that dishonesty.
Obviously you haven't done much reading on the AiG website. They often cite Hebrew scholars, have documented beliefs about Genesis during various times in church history, and address what you refer to as "Biblical scholarship." Their website has a great search engine for anyone who really cares to find out.
AiG promotes a straight forward reading of the Bible. History (which includes Genesis 1-11) is read as history and poetry is read as poetry. This is very natural for most people unless they have a problem with the straight forward comments. No English translation I have used mentions a dome in Genesis 1, although the topic is discussed on their site at http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/firmament.asp .
There are many ways in which the Bible is self-authenticating. The consistency of the message (e.g. man's lostness and need for a savior), the numerous fulfilled prophecies, the multiple eyewitnesses of Christ's resurrection (who stuck by the truth of their testimony even when faced with death), and the fact that it is consistent with real life. In the last respect, the awesome design in nature and the Bible's wisdom in human relationships are what I found most convincing. For example, God commands that we forgive, but this makes no sense if God is not our Creator to whom we must give an account. In psychology they have found out that forgiveness is very important to our well being. There are other truths the Bible presents that science is catching up with too.
You have failed to engage the arguments presented by AiG and failed to demonstrate that they ignore the Bible or science.
"Obviously you haven't done much reading on the AiG website."
Of course not. That would be a terrible waste of time. But some people with a little time on their hands have looked at their nonsense and shown it for the nonsense that it is. For instance - AIG specifically warns you not to read "talk origins". They are afraid that you might realize that "talk origins" clearly demonstrates that what AIG tells you is nonsense.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc /
I would like your oppinion of my remarks
http://www.opposingviews.com/counters/but-what-does-the-bible-say
and
http://www.opposingviews.com/counters/the-origin-of-the-seven-day-week
The Bible is no more self authenticating then any other irrational fantasy.
The whole idea of a creator, and a moment if creation is flawed:
"Some foolish men declare that a Creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill-advised, and should be rejected. If God created the world, where was he before creation?... How could God have made the world without any raw material? If you say He made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression... Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning and end. And it is based on principles."
Mahapurana by Jinasena
Eden as a paradise. Sounds like a maximum security prison with all pervasive surveillance.
And, obscenity of obscenities, original sin. Were Adam & Eve zombies ? since without free will they were not human:
"To hold man's nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched." (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged)"
There must be some way that the human race can rid itself of the scourge of religion.
"Some foolish men declare that a Creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill-advised, and should be rejected. If God created the world, where was he before creation?... How could God have made the world without any raw material? If you say He made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression... Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning and end. And it is based on principles."
Mahapurana by Jinasena
Total ignorance. God CREATED time. There was no "before". God created space. God created matter. It's evolutionists that have no answer for where the "raw material" came from.
God says:
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Colossians 1:16-17
But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
2 Peter 3:5-7
(New International Version)
For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.
2 Timothy 4:3-4
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
Romans 1:20
What is it with people like you ? was the bible the first book you read and then you quit reading anything else ?
Can you defend your position WITHOUT reference to the bible ?
Do you have any evidence, yes EVIDENCE, from another source that shows the bible is the word of God and not just a collection of books selected by the Vatican to support a particular viewpoint ?
Why do you find it easier to believe in some all powerful supernatural creator that is eternal than a natural universe that is eternal ?
Is it possible to prove (without reference to your book) that God exists, or does not exist ? probably not.
Science is not a collection of, cast in stone, answers. That kind of fixity is death. Science is a process. It will never end because there will always be more questions. You have simply abandoned the quest and with it your rational mind.
For anybody who reads this with, some semblance, of that rational mind, please take a look at:
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html
http://www.working-minds.com/galtmini.htm
As Epicurus siad, a little while before Christ & your book:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Andrew Holt, here's my take on your question:
1. "What is it with people like you ? was the bible the first book you read and then you quit reading anything else ? Can you defend your position WITHOUT reference to the bible ?"
2. "Do you have any evidence, yes EVIDENCE, from another source that shows the bible is the word of God and not just a collection of books selected by the Vatican to support a particular viewpoint ?"
My answers to your questions are: 1. Why does it matter; NO; and NO. 2. NO. The thing with people like us, people who believe in the Word of God is that we are dealing with a subject that goes beyond human beings. The Bible (Scriptures or Torah) Is not necessarily the first book that we have ever read, but it stands out as one of our most favorite books. If a man (or woman) says that he loves God and believes in Him as the Center of his life, then he will not have any problem using that book to help him support his viewpoint. By the way, the Vatican was not the only branch of Christianity to select Biblical Books and support a particular viewpoint, some Protestant denominations were also guilty of deciding which Books would remain in the Bible nearly four centuries ago. The Jewish people are guilty of omitting several Books from the Torah (Hebrew Bible), and some of these are included in today's Catholic Apocryphal editions of both Catholic and Protestant Bibles. One of these Books, the Book of Jasher, is an authentic Scriptural writing that many scholars believe should have remained in today's Torahs and Bibles. So much for that, I did not come here to split hairs with anyone. As far as evidence to show that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, you need look no further than the Bible itself. Since God cannot lie, why then, would the Word of God tell lies? The Bible (and Torah) are not Vatican-selected books, no matter how much some of us may want to believe that. In fact, the Vatican's Bible is the Christian Bible PLUS the Apocrypha, so technically speaking, the Vatican's Bible is more comprehensive than the one used by Protestants. Go figure on that one!
“My answers to your questions are: 1. Why does it matter; NO; and NO. 2. NO.”
It is the third ‘No’ that I find most interesting. You freely admit that you cannot defend your position without the Bible, but are in a discussion with those who do not believe that the Bible is a valid source in scientific matters. If a religious source that cannot be supported otherwise is valid to you then what would you say to a Taoist that supports their arguments by relying on their holy texts?
“If a man (or woman) says that he loves God and believes in Him as the Center of his life, then he will not have any problem using that book to help him support his viewpoint.”
This is all well and good when talking among other Christians , but it comes across as ‘God did it’ when talking with those outside of Christiantiy. If I said that the sun was carried across the sky in Apollo’s chariot what would you say?
“By the way, the Vatican was not the only branch of Christianity to select Biblical Books and support a particular viewpoint, some Protestant denominations were also guilty of deciding which Books would remain in the Bible nearly four centuries ago.”
So who has the correct collection of books?
“As far as evidence to show that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, you need look no further than the Bible itself.”
If and only if you already accept the Bible as true is this a valid statement… it does not follow if you do not already accept the original statement that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God.
“Since God cannot lie, why then, would the Word of God tell lies?”
The Flying Spaghetti Monster does not lie, we know this because the book describing the FSM says so and since the FSM does not lie then the book is true.
I apologise for the personal slant to the first part of my first question, it was meant to be rhetorical.
From your further answer I take it that you
a) have read other books.
b) Have no evidence outside a single source.
You say "As far as evidence to show that the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, you need look no further than the Bible itself. Since God cannot lie, why then, would the Word of God tell lies?"
That is such a naive statement that I am staggered.
1. "Since God cannot lie" So God is not all powerful ? Surely an omnipotent deity can do anything ?
2. Even if you are correct, men can lie. A man could quite easily write a book that says this is the word of God and be lying.
If I found a book describing a conflict between the Dark Lord Sauron, (who created a magical ring) and the inhabitants of middle earth. If this book ended with "This volume is true and was written whilst under divine inspiration of the one true God." Would you believe it ?
For the Bible to be divinely inspired all the persons writing the Bible or translating the Bible had to be listening to God, all the time. No stray thought. No theological spin.
Now the trick is to prove that all of the authors were free of stray thoughts and theological spin
The trick is to read the Bible as written rather then with an extreme Gracie Allen literalism.
Interpret it as it was intended to be interpreted? How does an individual verify that they are on the right interpretation?
You have also not demonstrated how the people who wrote, compiled, or translated the bible were 'free of stray thoughts and theological spin'