Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Barbie

2009-01-10T01:29:49Z

JohnR28:

Got to this page from the main page. It's entirely unencyclopedic. Considering that last time I tried to make a page less biased, I was banned from editing for "injecting liberal bias" (somehow injecting it by removing a sentence trying to link animal rights activists to abortionists), I won't do anything about this article, but the writing style is entirely inappropriate. If you look in the Encyclopedia Britannica you won't find that the writers have included rhetorical questions. [[User:JohnR28|JohnR28]] 20:29, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Talk:Essay:Barbie

2009-01-10T01:29:38Z

JohnR28: New page: Got to this page from the main page. It's entirely unencyclopedic. Considering that last time I tried to make a page less biased, I was banned from editing for "injecting liberal bias" (...

Talk:Animal rights

2008-12-27T21:52:36Z

JohnR28: New page: I removed a total logical fallacy - someone claiming that the real agenda of animal rights was to allow abortions. You have to be pretty hung up on conspiracy theories to believe that. ~...

I removed a total logical fallacy - someone claiming that the real agenda of animal rights was to allow abortions. You have to be pretty hung up on conspiracy theories to believe that. [[User:JohnR28|JohnR28]] 16:52, 27 December 2008 (EST)

Animal rights

2008-12-27T21:51:09Z

JohnR28:

The '''animal rights''' movement (sometimes called the animal liberation movement) is a [[liberal]] philosophical movement which seeks to get [[animal]]s the same rights that [[human]]s have. Most animal rights activists oppose the practice of using animals as [[commodity|commodities]] or [[property]].<ref name="about.com">[http://animalrights.about.com/od/animalrights101/a/ARtenets.htm The Basic Tenets of the Animal Rights Movement] </ref>Typically, animal rights activists oppose [[hunting]], [[animal testing]], wearing [[fur]], and the consumption of [[meat]]. Many practice a [[vegetarian]] or vegan diet. Some activists (especially those who identify themselves as animal liberationists) even disagree with the practice of owning [[pet]]s and seeing-eye dogs.<ref name="acmain">[http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/21 ActivistCash.com]</ref>

Detractors to the animal rights movement argue that since animals do not have the capacity to make [[morality|moral]] decisions they can not be given the same rights as humans.<ref name="about.com" /> Some opponents even argue that the goals of the movement are not animal liberation, but placing restrictions on the lives of other people.<ref>[[Center for Consumer Freedom]], [http://www.consumerfreedom.com/issuepage.cfm/topic/8 ''Animal Rights'']</ref>

[[David Gelernter]] argues:
{{cquote|The moral universe of Judaism and Christianity centers unequivocally on man. Human beings have rights and moral duties—kindness to animals being one. Animals have neither. The duty of kindness to animals is a duty owed not to nature but to God, a morally crucial distinction.<ref>http://www.city-journal.org/html/6_4_the_immorality.html</ref>}}

==See Also==
*[[Humane Society of the United States]]
*[[PETA]]
*[[ASPCA]]

==References==
<references />
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Politics]]

Debate:Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.

2008-12-27T20:02:41Z

JohnR28:

The bible cannot truly be taken literally, because its facts contradict itself. Take the gospels of Luke and Matthew, for example. Matthew states that in the lineage between Jesus and David there are 42 entires, and Luke proclaims only 27, and only three of them overlap. Obviously, both cannot be right, and cannot be used with literal conviction. Also, if Jesus is truly of virgin birth, then he cannot be the Messiah. The Old Testament clearly proclaims that the messiah must be David's descendant. Since Joseph was supposedly a descendant of David, this would make sense, but if he didn't shoot his DNA at Mary, then how can Jesus be the messiah at all? Something is clearly amiss here, and removes credibility from a literal bible. Finally, Matthew chronicles a census ordered by Caesar Augustus happening during the time that Mary and Joseph settled in Bethlehem. However, there were no censi taken at this time by Caesar Augustus. The closest on was done by Qurinin, and that was in 6 AD, no sooner. I question whether any of these bible literalists have actually read the bibles they claim dictate their lives, as if they did, they'd realize how truly ridiculous some of the errors are. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 23:17, 17 April 2007 (EDT)]]

:This is not a problem as it is far more appropriate to say that the Bible is only intended to be literarily true, as many of the comments below elaborate upon. Be careful; the Bible has withstood the test of scholarship for milenia and you are putting your scholarship (or lack thereof) on display. [[User:Qwestor|Qwestor]] 09:32, 02 January 2008 (EST)

Matthew and Luke give two different liniages. Matthew gave Joseph's, and Luke is giving Mary's. As such, Mary is also a descendant of David, and thus Jesus could still be born of a virgin and be the Messiah of David's lineage. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] March 3 2008

:Firstly, if one is of Joseph and the other of Mary, why are there 41 generations between David and Joseph and only 27 between David and Mary? I know a generation isn't a fixed period of time, but still, it's unbelievably impractical to believe that Mary and Joseph could be anywhere near the same age. By rights, Mary should be several hundred years older than Joseph if you believe that both geneologies are the literal truth. Also, it doesn't say anywhere that Luke is describing the geneology of Mary - in fact, in Luke 3:23, he says "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli," and continues from there, which shows that Luke is describing the geneology of Joseph. And finally, Jesus was not the son of Joseph, He was the son of God. What you're doing there is taking two pieces of evidence, realising that they don't fit together, and making up a third piece to try and cover it, and that's how atheists get you. You have to remember that the Gospels were written by imperfect human beings, not God, and that's why they tell two different tales. It's likely that some elements from both are true, but neither is the literal truth, and they certainly can't both be the literal truth. [[User:JohnR28|JohnR28]] 15:02, 27 December 2008 (EST)

==No discernment==
If you are looking for the truth then you'd better start looking harder and longer. Understanding the Word of God is a little different then reading your school textbook. It sounds like you did a rudimentary scan of the Bible only to find everything not to be totally synchronic. The lineage answer is here: http://www.gracethrufaith.com/ask-a-bible-teacher/are-josephs-and-marys-lineage-incorrect
You go on from there, but it is only the same type of faulty logic used with an incomplete picture of actual history. You use selective facts in a subjective manner in order to prove your agenda that the Bible cannot be taken literally. What context are you trying to find these literal inconsistancies? The Creation, the Garden of Eden, the Flood, or the Exodus? These are the literal truths of the Bible. If you don't believe in the One that wrote the Bible then don't waste your time in finding any literal truth in it because you don't have the key.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 19:26, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:'''''Wow'''''. So, this book which you and your sort wish to hold out to me and [[Liberal|my]] [[Atheist|sort]] as being ultimate revealed truth, cannot be understood properly unless I have already accepted your worldview? You know, there are same Christians out there who love the bible, and Jesus, and God, and don't worry about literalism. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:49, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Typical response. My main argument against a literal interpretation of the Bible is that "the One" didn't write the entire bible, which includes texts that were never meant to be incorporated with others. Also, the Bible as we knew it has gone through numerous translations; it wasn't originally written in English, because it didn't exist back then. Because of the multiple translations needed to get to English, all sense of context is lost since the original Aramic or Hebrew. A crude but effective test can be done on those free translations websites. Take a slang phrase (or any other phrase) such as "All dressed up and nowhere to go", or something like that. Translate it from English to French, then French to German, then from German to English. You'll find that the new phrase has zero relationship with the original one. Admittedly, translation would be more sophisticated via the human element, but the point is the same. Nobody can accept a literal interpretation of the bible through the English version; the ONLY way to get an accurate interpretation of the Bible is through the original root languages. Otherwise, any literal interpretation is simply a fallacy. And I SINCERELY doubt that you have read the entire collected works of the Bible in its original Hebrew and Aramic. By the way, those websites do not describe how Jesus could have been the Messiah AND of virgin birth. He cannot be both, for if he is of immaculate conception, he doesn't meet the requirements of the prophecy in the Old Testament (on a side note, isn't it funny how god is much meaner and nastier in the Old Testament than in the New?). However, if he is descended from David through Joseph, making him the messiah, that denies a main tenet of Jesus being of immaculate conception. Ergo, it is silly and plain false to take a literal interpretation of the Bible, which was purely meant to describe a template for good and compassion in a world lacking those qualities.
One other point: after the Flood, God used the rainbow as a symbol to people that he was so distraught by his destruction of the world that he would never do anything cataclysmic again. So how does that hold against the claims of a coming Judgement or any of that other stuff? [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 12:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)]]

In the eternal worlds of Homer Simpson: 'Facts, schmacts. Facts can be used to prove anything that's even remotely true.' That's exactly what you are doing: flying in the face of the facts. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 12:25, 20 April 2007 (EDT)]]

::Typical legalism. I've heard them a thousand times. Usually a big waste of time trying to argue a point. Fine then, for you, this point is worthless. Since you won't accept what it says is the antithesis of your religious belief. Be a nihilist. You wish to slander the wisdom of a book thousands of years older then you'll ever be. You offer nothing to fill the void. By the way the rainbow was the symbol God used to show mankind He would never again destroy the entire world by flood. The Judgement day is when all of mankind will come before their Creator and be judged worthy to live or die. Then you can argue all of your legalist points and tell Him how badly he goofed everything up. That should go good for you. The final 7 year Tribulation that culminates at a little place called Har Megiddo, a.k.a. Armegedon, doesn't result in the total destruction of mankind. Just a third or two of it. But why do I wast my time here? You have no faith in Him, so His words are meaningless to you. They are foolishness to those without faith.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 22:19, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
::: You are right, do not waste any time of yours. If you are part of the establishment on this wiki, take such blasphemists off the board since they obviously do not believe in the book that holds ALL the truth and ALWAYS has. Evolution is a theory, what the Bible says about man/life is the truth. All the stuff about fossils and carbon dating and gene structure and function and the similarity between genes and proteins among humans, chimps, worms, mice and rats are all a scientific conspiracy designed to make believers in the literal truth of the Bible look bad. I mean, scientists make up things and are dishonest while men of God are honorable and are always seeking the truth as stated in the Bible. The real problem is that Gutenberg came along and made it possible not only to make copies of the Bible but blasphemies like textbooks in the sciences and humanities. Worse, Galileo was let off the hook last century for his blasphemies, the Sun does go around the Earth and we are the center of the Universe. The real enemies are not Muslims or Buddhists or Hindus or Bahais or the Jews - but teachers and professors who have the temerity of teaching students how to think and question everything. And how dare does anyone question the eternal truths in the Bible? All of it is true, and anyone who says anything else is evil. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Roo, just s simple question, "Why do you believe the bible to be true?". Really, what happened in your life for you to believe that this 2000 year old book has more validity than physical evidence that has been provided over the past 100 years? Did you know that most people are Christian, not because they studied other religions and chose one, because they were indoctrinated into it by their parents and communities? Perhaps you should ask yourself the reason why it irritates you so much when people question your beliefs. Maybe it is because you want to answer them but can not find the answers in the religion and now you are starting to doubt what you have been taught? Take the higher road and look at research or research for yourself, if you start to make things up or provide information that is misleading then you are just getting trapped.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 09:05, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

:I know the Bible to be true not only because I have studied it for decades. But because of people who know nothing about it continue to make fun of it just as little children make fun of someone they don't understand at elementary school. They are the reasons why I am, as well as others, are driven to study it. I read the simplistic little smug attacks on Judaism and Christianity and see only foolishness. Whether or not they are Humanist or Nihilist, I'd prefer them to stick to commenting on something they know something about. There are no grave errors or inconsistencies within the Bible. This is only professed by those who hate Christians and Jews that keep repeating it in the vain hope someone will believe them. Just because you don't get it doesn't make it errant. It may be your just not scholarly enough. The religious beliefs in evolutionary theories are what have well documented grave errors and inconsistencies. The theory of evolution is a delusion hatched from a fantasy that never happened and continues not to happen. It is unfalsifiable. This is all that is offered as the antithesis to Gods word. This religious belief you profess as science isn't at all scientific. It's rather called a FAITH. Of which the foundations of that faith are crumbling into dust. Its priestly class of teachers and professors have indoctrinated their faithful students only to mock and belittle those who don't believe in the religion of evolution.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:26, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wow, Roo, sounds harsh. I just wanted to know was what made you a Christian? I have to mention that I am a bible scholar, have read many different translations and have seen first hand some of the inconsistencies found in the bible and its chapters. I keep an open mind and look at the bible as metaphorical instead of literal so that I can keep faith in its message, however logically it does have issues. Perhaps you could study it a little bit more and try to see these things yourself? The point I made above about indoctrination still holds true, very few people actually take the time to study the Quran and other religious texts, and perhaps you should spend some time to see the difference between the bible and these texts. As for Evolution, I would have to say you seem not to be aware of the biological sciences. Many biological predictions have come about due to evolution and many observable events have roots in evolutionary theory. It is far from a delusion and fare from unfalsifiable, I have pointed these things out to you on the debate page before but you have yet to respond.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:36, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

:::TimS, Yeshua Messiach's death and resurrection is what makes me a Christian. How about you? I would be very interested to hear about some of your first hand inconsistencies that you've found in the bible and its chapters. Also, be careful in using the open mind or being more open adage. Being so open that you fall for anything while also standing for nothing comes to my mind. Not to infer to be close minded either. Just be mindful. Metaphorically speaking, as it were.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:50, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Roo, just a few things. First, how do you know that the story of Jesus is true and not embellished? Second, I am agnostic, I do not claim to be right with any religion. Third, here is a list for you <ref>http://www.cs.umd.edu/~mvz/bible/bible-inconsistencies.pdf</ref>. Forth, having an open mind does not mean you take everything at face value. Having an open mind means that you are willing to listen and try to understand the logic of something before judging it false. I have studied the bible, have you studied evolution yet? Here is a link to a wonderful book that would give you the background in evolutionary theory to better debate your position. <ref>http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/GOUSTR.html</ref> I believe it would help you understand the theory and perhaps come to accept it but if not then it will at least provide you with some background information so you do not fail when debating with someone.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:10, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Tims, the link you give is from the University of Maryland's Department of Computer Science. When using the search function input with bible I found the list of over 700 inconsistencies along with a description below it that says: "has been used by bible believers to justify all kinds of cruelty to ..." http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/csumd?q=bible&domains=www.cs.umd.edu&sitesearch=www.cs.umd.edu
::::Your so-called list is merely 700 childish statements of ignorant mockery towards the Word of God. None of which presented any actual inconsistencies that couldn't be solved with any serious examination. I'm sure it wasn't intended to be malicious. Since you say you are an agnostic then it's a waste of time to give you directions to a place you've no intention to go to. As for the reference to the book: The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Stephen Jay Gould, it is another good example of how the adherents to the ideology of Darwin keep changing itself. That's what makes it UNFALSIFIABLE. It is able to change itself by evolving to conform to any new hypothesis, or evidence, especially the lack of it, that comes down the road. Get it? It just keeps evolving.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 10:44, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::That is correct Roo, a link that was a PDF, easier to read. Did you happen to read through the list? There are many inconsistencies that can only be resolved by a liberal application of interpretation, like you mentioned above serious examination. If you take it literally, like you seem to take the creation account in the bible, then you can not explain the inconsistencies. For example how do you explain these two points 1. "The Amalekites were smitten before Amalek (from whom they descended) was born. Amalek was the grandson of Esau (Gen.36:12). 14:7" 2."Noah kills the "clean beasts" and burns their dead bodies for God. According to 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all "clean" animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark.” Just looking on line and reading the bible you can see the other inconsistencies that stand out, when you are looking. The logic of the bible is often flawed. I believe it has some very good points about how to live with others but I think it should not be taken literally when other evidence has shown it to be false.
:::::If I understand correctly you are talking about heaven when you said direction to a place where I have no intention to go. Just a point, when you look at the logic of heaven did you ever wonder how a person could be truly satisfied? Think on it, if you are in heaven and your family is below then you would have a longing for them. If you were doing the same thing day after day then you would have a longing for something different. The only logical way for a heaven to exist is to wipe the mind and individuality away of the human. So in essence destroy the being. Does not sound like heaven to me. Perhaps I am wrong but the heaven of the bible sounds worse than any prison on earth.
:::::Roo, once again you show your lack of scientific understanding. Theories do adapt to new research but if the basic premise of the theory is not proven false it still stands. For the theory of evolution the basic premise is that organisms evolve over time in response to their environment. Has anyone provided proof to the contrary of this? That is the falsifiablity of the theory. As we learn more about molecular biology we learn more about the mechanisms that contribute to evolution. It does not change the basic premise of the theory only reinforces it. Like I said it would behoove you to read more on this subject to better educate yourself.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 10:02, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::Well, that meets the definition of being unfalsifiable, doesn't it? There will never be the evidence that once and for all will prove its validity, so that neither can it be invalidated. A perfect example of its own circular logic. The only reinforcement you will ever see within the field of evolution theory is the evolution of the theory itself. Forever adapting to whatever the next great new hypothesis comes down the trail. But before you accuse me again of having a lack of scientific understanding let me say that you too also show a lack of understanding. By believing the statements made in the PDF from your link you have indeed proven your own lack of understanding of the Bible. Although as a matter of simple logic you wouldn't want to seek any truth within the Bible. It is inconsistant with your belief in evolutionary theory. You can't believe in a Creator since only creatures are acknowledged without their Creator to an evolutionist. It would be only logical to embrace evolution and reject the Bible. Yes, you are also way wrong with that Heaven thing you got there.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:53, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Roo, it does not meet the definition of being non-falsifiable. I gave you examples in previous conversations as to what would falsify evolution. Please read and try to understand them. I never said I believe the statements in the PDF, just that they point out some issues in the logic of the wording. You made a claim that the bible had no errors, I just showed you some of the logic errors that have been reported. I can not understand where you get that my understanding would be flawed when what I presented was black and white. Your statement about not believing in a creator is a bit far fetched, I could be some other religion besides Christian and not believe the same as you do but believe in evolution and a creator. Your logic seems to be limited based on your worldview of the situation. I would advise that you open your mind and try reading some research and come to your own conclusions.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 16:49, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::::TimS, you say you don't believe in the statements of the PDF and yet they point out issues of logic? That in itself isn't logical. The worldview of believing in a Creator while at the same time believing in a theory of Evolution that rejects a Creator is also illogical. I also believe that the kind of open mind your talking about is the kind that stands for nothing and will fall for anything. You can begin to see where this is going, don't you?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 21:53, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

I got to say, I looked through that list of inconsistencies (reference 1), hoping to find something really juicy, but most of them were nit-picky while the rest were not 100% inconsistent. I didn't read the whole thing, but that list seems pretty bogus (that is, if it were created with the intention of proving false a literal interpretation). I don't like things like that; they foster anger and not discussion.

I just wanted to say a few things here. In reference to an earlier comment made by SeekCommon, I'm a scientist, and I don't think that I make things up more than any given man of God. We are all human, and it is all of our capacities to lie and falsify.

Also, I'd like to defend evolution. Evolution is a theory. So are gravity, the jet stream, eyesight, relativity, electricity, and so on and so on. We scientists realize that we can never be sure to know that anything is completely, certainly, without-any-doubt-at-all true. So we use the word "theory." For instance, in paper I'm writing for publication (hopefully soon), I show some peculiar behavior I've observed in certain compounds then I come up with a theory to explain it. Once published, other scientists might realize that my theory helps explain phenomenon they've noticed, so they would write a paper and reference my theory. This might continue until so much work is at least slightly based on my theory that not many people question it. But we would still call it a theory because, unless God himself comes down and tells us to grab a pen because he's about to explain it to us, we will never be absolutely sure that our theories are correct. There are cases throughout history of relatively-recent theories being proven wrong (classical physics is a famous example of a theory that couldn't understand why it couldn't explain everything), but these are surprisingly rare. That's the beauty of our system; we take nothing for granted, and this makes us able to explain how the world works (and at this point we recognize that we can't be too wrong considering that we having working cars, computers, medicine, and the like).

So, I hope that helps people understand what is meant by "theory." In some sense, the concept of evolution does have to slightly change to stay recent with respect to new research. But the sort of thing that changes in the theory are the scientific details lay-folk don't understand anyway. If the crux of the argument, that slow genetic changes occur in populations over long periods of time, turns out to be wrong, then evolution will be proven false. But a new theory will take its place. So if your problem with evolution is that it contradicts the Bible (which, judging by where this argument is taking place, it probably is), let's not argue the falsifiability since 1) making up new theories could be viewed as ways of extending evolution's lifespan and 2) I could make similar arguments about your beliefs. I read a book about evolution and creation in high school, and it seems from that book that *most* (not all) of the noted inconsistencies (used loosely) can be resolved with metaphoric interpretation of the Bible and consideration of the Bible's original language being Aramaic/Hebrew. I suppose that's why we are talking about evolution on this page.--[[User:Remainder|Remainder]] 15:08, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

AdamN, you are wrong about the censi. If you care to educate yourself to the truth about this time in history, see the page
here:http://1stokiedoc.tripod.com/census/
Although it is easy to make blanket statements that you may parrot from your educators, it's quite another to engage in good scholarship. OkieDoc 17/08/07

==Two accounts of creation - the Bible contradicts itself in the first chapters of the first book==

In Genesis there are two conflicting accounts of creation that are so blatent the only logical explanation is that they are two different stories about the same thing, written at different times by different people. If the Bible is the literal word of God, this can't possibly be the case.

In Genesis 1 the animals are created on the fifth day, man and women on the sixth day (from the New American Bible):

"Evening came, and morning followed--the fifth day.
Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth all kinds of living creatures: cattle, creeping things, and wild animals of all kinds." And so it happened:
God made all kinds of wild animals, all kinds of cattle, and all kinds of creeping things of the earth. God saw how good it was.
Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground."
God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.
God blessed them, saying: "Be fertile and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and all the living things that move on the earth."
God also said: "See, I give you every seed-bearing plant all over the earth and every tree that has seed-bearing fruit on it to be your food; and to all the animals of the land, all the birds of the air, and all the living creatures that crawl on the ground, I give all the green plants for food." And so it happened.
God looked at everything he had made, and he found it very good. Evening came, and morning followed--the sixth day.

Then in Genesis 2, the seventh day is described, where God takes a coffee break, and then he goes and creates man when the land is completely barren, and then gives man creatures to play with (again, from the New American Bible):

"Thus the heavens and the earth and all their array were completed.
Since on the seventh day God was finished with the work he had been doing, he rested on the seventh day from all the work he had undertaken.
So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work he had done in creation.
Such is the story of the heavens and the earth at their creation. At the time when the LORD God made the earth and the heavens--
while as yet there was no field shrub on earth and no grass of the field had sprouted, for the LORD God had sent no rain upon the earth and there was no man to till the soil, but a stream was welling up out of the earth and was watering all the surface of the ground--the LORD God formed man out of the clay of the ground and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and so man became a living being."

Now, I've heard from Biblical literalists that Genesis 2 is supposed to be describing the creation of Eden, but this can't be the case because of the next verse:

"Then the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and he placed there the man whom he had formed."

The accounts are written in cronological order, so there is no dispute about when things happened, to me, anyway. I challenge anyone to try to give me a convincing argument about why I should believe that the Bible is the literal word of god. Where does this idea come from anyway (let me guess, from the Bible, right? Circular reasoning...)? [stubbstarbuck] 16:24, June 28th, 2007.

:Did you ever stop to think that Genesis 1 describes the Creation, while Genesis 2 just goes into a little more detail as to what happened? Unless of course it's your opinion that it just has to contradict itself... [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:33, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::There is only one account given of the Creation in the book of Genesis. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." -Genesis 1:1. It is literal and chronological. What apparently has confused you is the recounting of it in Genesis 2 which is merely an account from a second perspective. Which is why it gives the precondition of: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." -Genesis 2:4. Two perspectives of one event. Now that wasn't hard at all, was it? Why are there two pespectives given here? Well, you'll just have to read the rest of it yourself in order to fully understand that enigma.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 20:44, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

Being a Christian is bad for a person's mental health because according to the Bible, the Bible contains "leaven".
Matthew 13:33 Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.
Luke 13:21 It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

According to the Bible, "leaven" is to be avoided.
Matthew 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Mark 8:15 And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.

According to the Bible, "leaven" can be avoided by sorting the Bible.
Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
2 Corinthians 13:1 This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

According to the Bible, it contains "leaven", "leaven" is to be avoided, and "leaven" can be avoided by sorting the Bible. The unsorted Bible is therefore bad for a person's mental health.
heretic5 [Being a heretic is not automatically being wrong.]

The "inconsistencies" found in the bible are NOT inconsistincies at all. They are merely different points of view, its that simple. If three people went on vacation together to Disney world, then came back home and they decided to write their accounts of what happened in their journals, I can promise that they would have a few similarities; However, they would ALSO show a few different stories. They may include certain by-standers that were important to them, but maybe not important to another person who tells the same story so then left out that person. The story is still the same, with NO lies, or inconsistencies, just simply different points of view.
-matt

...but not all of those points of view can be correct, if they differ in detail. If Susie says that everybody bought Mickey Mouse t-shirts, and Jack says that only half of the family bought Mickey Mouse t-shirts, then someone is remembering inaccurately.

It's interesting that the majority of scholars I've researched who defend the Bible against accusations of inconsistency do so by frequently making the point that the English translation doesn't always carry the same context as the original Aramaic. In other words: ''something was lost in translation.''

How can the Bible continually remain whole and inerrant when even its most learned defenders acknowledge translation issues that obscure the original meaning?

In the example of Jesus' resurrection, some gospels say there's one angel present, some say two. But, is that a contradiction? No. It would be if it was said that there were only one and only two. That's a contradiction. But, one of the writers could have seen just one and wrote about that one, while another could have seen both there. It's not necessarily a contradiction.[[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 00:22, 1 May 2008 (EDT)

:That's an extremely precarious argument to raise in defense of the notion of Biblical inerrancy, Ultimahero. In a court case today, if two witnesses to a crime were questioned, and one said that there were two suspects and the other said there was one, significant effort would be taken to ascertain which one was right. If, in fact, there were two suspects, then the person who said that there was one is, in fact, in error. He's made a mistake. That mistake might not say anything at all about his honesty--it's quite likely that he honestly believes there was only one--but it does say something about his powers of observation. It would especially say something about his powers of observation if the person he failed to notice was had an appearance like lightning and clothes as white as snow.

:Accepting that the authors of the Bible were fallible men, capable of errors of this sort, is an absolute denial of the concept of inerrancy.

:Your argument is also flawed in another respect: the authors of these books ''weren't at the tomb.'' They didn't see anything--not one angel, not two. Their accounts aren't based on first-hand observation, but on the reports of the witnesses who ''were'' there: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (I suppose the guards at the tomb could also have given an account, but it seems unlikely, given that they were ordered to lay the blame on the Apostles.)

:Thus, the several Apostles received the same account of the episode at the tomb from the same witnesses.

:There are stronger arguments for the difference in accounts; it would be prudent to raise these arguments rather than then one you raise.

:[[User:BenP|BenP]] 09:52, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

Let's say that you and a friend were walking down the street and saw a car crash happen right in front of you. If the police asked you and your friend to give an account of what happened, do you think that you would both give the same story down to the exact details? Of course not. In a court of law, if two independent witnesses gave the exact same testimony with the exact same language and not even the slightest difference, those testimonies would be thrown out. It would be obvious to the judge that they had gotten together and collaborated the evidence. Similarly, if the disciples had reported the exact same things with no variations at all, then they would instantly be discredited.

Now if the variations they give contradict one another, then there's a problem. But they don't. For example, John says that Mary Magdalene was at the tomb. He doesn’t say "only" Mary, just says that Mary was there. Mark, on the other hand, says, Mary Magdalene and th other Mary were there. That's no contradiction. Neither said that it was only those they were mentioning. They most likely just considered that the ones they mentioned to be the only relevant ones. There's no mistake there. And the women came back and told the disciples, and there were several women, so they had different accounts, as well. Maybe on woman told Peter something and another woman talked to John. That isn't a contradiction. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 17:35, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

:...but, again, it tacitly acknowledges that what the authors of Scripture write may not be the ''whole'' truth...which is a very risky road to pursue when arguing for Biblical inerrancy. If the authors can leave things out in one place, they can leave things out in other places; who's to say what those things might be, and whether or not they might be important?

:I remain unable to embrace the grammatical-historical doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. Though I accept and believe in the Truth of the Bible, I do not believe that God would restrict true knowledge of His Word to a select few elite scholars capable of semantically parsing the autographic texts.

[[User:BenP|BenP]] 21:23, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

It was written by men, that's certainly true. But these men were inspired by God to write what He put in them. Spiritually speaking, God was writing it through them. They left out the things that they considered unimportant, but everything that mattered is in there. The miracles of Jesus, His divinity, crucifixion, burial and resurrection, etc.

What leads you to believe that God has revealed other spiritual truths anywhere else? 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All Scripture is inspired by God...". The Bible itself claims it's inspired. Granted, this isn't an essential issue, so not holding to Biblical inerrancy doesn't negate your salvation. (I'm assuming your a Christian.) But, it does lead down to the path of liberalism in regards to Christianity and can lead to heresy. Not trying to judge you, just saying. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:36, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

:Let's qualify that stetement a bit, Ultima. As I'm sure you know, not every translation of the Bible renders 2 Timothy 3:16 in the same fashion. My New American Standard does, indeed, say that "All Scripture is inspired by God." My King James says "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." On the other hand, my reprint of the American Standard Version says "Every scripture inspired of God..." My Wycliffe says "For al scripture inspirid of God is profitable..." Other translations, if I recall correctly, use more metaphorical language (the phrase "God-breathed" springs to mind, though I can't immediately recall which edition employs that metaphor...ESV, perhaps?)

:Now: I know that some of these translations are regarded as having greater validity than others. Certainly, I would tend towards the NASB in matters of serious Bible scholarship. However, it is important to keep in mind that we're dealing with interpretation on many levels. The authors of the various editions engaged in interpretation when formulating the modern English wording; I am engaging in interpretation when I select one translation over another.

:Assuming we can agree on a translation, there's also the matter of what is actually said. The NASB confirms that all Scripture is inspired by God, and profitable for instruction; it does not say that all Scripture is literal. Clearly, that is not the case, and I don't think anyone with a serious interest in the Bible would claim that it was; Christ's parables were certainly "profitable for instruction" (and more than inspired by God, since they came directly from the source.) They were not, on the other hand, meant to be taken literally.

:There's also the matter of "Scripture" (or alternately, "Writing" in certain translations) versus "Bible." 2 Timothy doesn't say "The Bible is inspired..." It says "All Scripture is inspired." What, then, of the Apocrypha and other texts rejected by the early Church? Did they overstep their boundaries in using fallible human judgement to determine which writings were a part of "All Scripture" and which were not? (One might argue that God would not permit them to make an error in such a selection, but I am not familiar with any textual support for that notion in the Bible. Certainly, history teaches us that the Church is capable of serious error and corruption.)

:As a result, while mindful of, say, 2 Peter 1:20's warning that "...no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation," it seems to me as if it's impossible to engage in a study of the Bible WITHOUT engaging in interpretation. To claim that 2 Timothy establishes that the Bible is inerrant is certainly a valid interpretation, but it IS an interpretation, and not the only one.

:To touch upon your question of spiritual truths elsewhere, I should think that would be self-evident: God's will is revealed to us when we earnestly seek him through prayer. (I find Jeremiah 29:11-13 to be a particularly moving affirmation of this.) The Bible is the map by which we may begin our search for Him, but the search itself takes a lifetime.

:[[User:BenP|BenP]] 17:31, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Well, let's eliminate the problem of differing English interpretations right off the bat. Let's look at the Greek, which the New Testament was originally written it. The word inspired is "theopneustos", literally meaning "God-Breathed". All Scripture comes from God.

As far as literal interpretation compared to figurative, the answer is to look at what it says. If Jesus is giving a parable, as you said, then obviously it is intended to be a figurative story used to illustrate a spiritual truth. If the Bible says, "Jesus went to Jerusalem", then that's literal. What does it say? Also the book that it comes out of is important. Things coming out of the Book of Revelation deserve more scrutiny when coming to literalism because it's a book filled with symbolism. Compare that to the four Gospels, which are accounts of what Jesus did and said.

The cannon of the Scripture was established by the early Christians. They new which books were inspired and which weren't. The four Gospels were written by the people who either traveled with Jesus personally (Matthew, John) or by those who associated with those close to Jesus (Mark was a companion of Peter, Luke that of Paul). Matthew, Mark and Luke were all written within a generation of the death of Christ. This means that the people who were around at the time could easily determine if they were lying or not. That gives legitimacy to them. John was written towards the end of the 1st century, by Jesus' close disciple and friend. He knew what happened. Compare these to some of the other alleged gospels that were left out. They were written hundred of years after the death of Christ and were obviously not written by those they were attributed to. And a lot of those other accounts contain things that are simply untrue. That Christ never died, etc. These were clearly not true as they went against the understanding of what happened to Christ. It things like this that made it easy to figure out what was Scripture and what wasn't.

Do you consider yourself a Christian? If so, the think about this. Christ says that He is "the way, the TRUTH and the life." (John 14:6) And, He says that He alone reveals the Father (Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22). So if Jesus is the Truth, and He alone reveals the Father, then how do you find God? Only through Jesus. No one comes to the Father but through Him. (John 14:6). You have to go through Jesus. And where is Jesus revealed? In the Bible. Only the Bible can teach about Christ. So logically, you have to go through the Bible if you want to find the truth, Jesus, and want to find God. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:51, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:...but that's precisely it. Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The Bible is not the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The Old Testament is not the Way, the Truth, and the Life. The Bible is valuable, but it is a starting point--not an end. The Pharisees and Saducees were quite proud of their learning and knowledge of Scripture, but their ability to quote the law of the Old Testament did not make them holy; if anything, it pulled them away from God, for it made them prideful.

:Consider the number of Christians throughout history who have lived and died without ever reading a single word in the Bible. Consider the fact that the early Christians dealt with such fragments of Scripture as they could find; and that although the canon was established by the fourth century AD (and much of it was generally accepted by the third,) Bibles with significant variations in text would continue to be circulated and used for many, many years past this point. The Wycliffe Bible springs to mind, as do the (comparatively recent) examples of Bibles containing the Apocrypha.

:How, then, were those early Christians brought to the Word? Through the witness of Christians, most of whom had ''also'' never read the Bible. The conclusion, I think, is inescapable: while the Bible is important, it is entirely possible to come to salvation without it; the Gospel was meant to be spread through witness. Christ commanded His followers to go forth and spread his Word actively. I believe that that would have happened regardless of the establishment of canon, and regardless of the development of the printing press.

:While you assert that the fathers of the early Church would be able to select which books were and were not canonical and inspired with accuracy, I think that's by no means certain. Consider the huge docrtinal schisms of the early church over such fundamental issues as whether Christ was God or Man and the nature of the Trinity. There was a great deal of uncertainty as to the meaning of God's revealed Word in the early church.

:Moreover, I think some of their choices remain questionable to this day. The book of Enoch is rejected as part of the canon, but it's explicitly quoted in Jude 1:14-1:15. Those responsible for establishing the canon concluded that Enoch was probably not the author, even though Jude clearly says that those were Enoch's words, and even though many of the early church fathers considered it a prophetic text and inspired of God. If Jude is inerrant Scripture, and Jude clearly says that the words of Enoch as referenced in Enoch 1 were prophetic, then was the early church truly right to exclude it from the canon?

:As to the subject of what is literal and what is figurative, it's important to bear a number of things in mind. Languages change over time, and figurative language is especially susceptible to this. If I say "Hold your horses" to a group of friends today, it is clearly understood as a metaphor for "Be patient." Thus, it's possible and even likely to miss metaphors due to a lack of shared cultural context.

:Even a few hundred years ago, such an injunction would have been taken as a literal command. Mastery of idiom in the modern version of a language does not guarantee mastery of idiom in the ancient version. Consider how much difficulty the typical English speaker would have with the comparatively recent writings of Geoffrey Chaucer, for instance. Scholars can, by using historical accounts, arrive at a reasonably accurate understanding of such language, but it's still an approximation.

:I have faith in God and in Christ. I do not have as much faith in the ability of man to know His will infallibly; even if the original authors of Scripture were inspired of God and incapable of error (a position which I acknowledge can be derived from Scripture,) I remain skeptical that subsequent generations were similarly infallible in their decisions concerning these writings, and that those of us alive today are infallible in our ability to interpret His Word. Minds far better than mine have misinterpreted the Bible in the past, and so been led to erroneous conclusions about the nature of the universe; Martin Luther believed in the firmament, for instance. If the finest minds of the Church could and did make errors of comprehension, I consider it prideful in the extreme to believe that such errors cannot occur today.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:48, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

But Christ is represented in the Bible. You have to go to the Bible to get the history of Christ’s death and resurrection. I agree that Biblical knowledge isn’t going to impress God. It’s important and we should study it, but it doesn’t save us. If we rely on our own efforts and our own knowledge for salvation, then we’re lost. It’s faith in Christ and what He did that saves us. But we can only learn about that from the Bible.

In the early Christian church, they’re were people who had traveled with Christ and knew Him personally. So they could understand things in a way that we couldn’t, due to the personal connection. And even in the first few hundred years, they did have the written words of the Apostles. But, they consisted of a much smaller group that what we see today, so there wouldn’t have needed to be as spread out as Christians are today, so it would be easier to spread the Gospel.

The Apocrypha was written in the four hundred year gap after the Old Testament was completed and before the time of Christ. It was rejected by the Jews, so there is no reason to accept it today. If the Jews didn’t put it into their Scripture, why should Christians who built upon that original Old Testament?

I would certainly agree that you don’t have to read to the Bible to be saved, because, again, it’s about what Christ did on the cross that cleanses us from sins. But, you have to go to the Scripture to find the truth, which is Christ. And only the Bible contains the Truth.

There were certainly debates about various doctrines in the early church. But, we have the written work he main church fathers, the Apostles, in our hands. We can see what the correct doctrines are because we can see what they taught.

As far as Enoch goes, it’s debatable whether Jude was quoting from the Apocryphal book of Enoch or something else. But, for arguments sake, let’s say he was quoting that specific book. That doesn’t make it inspired. That just means the author got it right on that one point. Besides, Paul quotes Epimendies, who was a Greek philosopher from the 6th Century BC in Titus 1:12. That doesn’t make Epimendies inspired.
And most Christian fathers didn’t accept the book of Enoch. Some did, but the majority didn’t.

Yes, culture is absolutely important. But scholars can reconstruct what the culture was like at the time based on early writings from that time period. It may not be perfect, but it’s really good, and the only thing we have to indicate that they’re wrong is the assumption that they are.

The Bible has been meticulously worked on to make sure it was translated correctly for generation to generation. In fact, it has been better preserved than any other ancient document. There are over 5,600 early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, all written within 100 years of it’s completion. Compare that with the next well-transcribed document, Homer’s Iliad. That had 643 manuscripts and were written 500 years after it’s completion. The New Testament just blows everything else out of the water. We have very good reason to believe that it an accurate version of what was originally written.

Anyone can make mistakes. I would never claim that I’ve got everything perfectly figured out. But, I do look at the evidence and conclude that the Bible is extremely accurate and is the inspired word of God.

Not to change the subject, but you said something interesting. You said, “I have faith in God and in Christ.” Do you consider God and Christ to be different entities, or do you think Christ is God? I’d be interested to hear our opinion on that. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 23:23, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

:Err...well, the only answer I can give to that question is "Yes." Yes to both; Christ is God, and Christ is a distinct entity...God and the Son of God. My choice of phrase was most likely an echo of the Nicene Creed (which was drilled into me pretty thoroughly at a young age.)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:11, 9 May 2008 (EDT)

So would that mean that there are two Gods? [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 01:42, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

:No, that would mean that there is one God with three distinct and equal aspects: Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. I'm not quite sure what you're looking for here, Ultima; short of resurrecting Arianism, how could any Christian believe otherwise? While we may disagree on whether certain truths in the Bible are literal or allegorical, the nature of God is such a central tenet that I don't think you can reasonably call a faith that rejects it Christian.

:Please don't take offense, but it seems as if you're trying to interpret acceptance of the Holy Trinity as something unusual or exotic.

:--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 09:10, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Hold on, now. Don’t assume anything. You don’t know what I believe on the subject because I haven’t stated anything yet. I simply asked about what you believe. I actually do hold to the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is the Biblical truth. I was simply trying to follow up on what you said about different Christ and God being different entities. If they are, then Christ couldn’t be the one God. Because by definition two entities are two entirely separate beings, so God and Christ wouldn’t be the same. That’s why the Trinity is referred to as one God, three persons, not three separate beings. But it sounds like you hold to the doctrine as well, so we agree on that. Perhaps it’s just a communication error. I wanted to make sure you weren’t rejecting the divinity of Christ. [[User:Ultimahero|Ultimahero]] 13:30, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?

2008-12-27T19:51:42Z

JohnR28:

I'm curious as to know what the general consensus of Conservapedians is in regards to this topic. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 15:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Personally, I believe allegorically. But, this IS an issue of theology so it is based almost totally on personal opinion.-- Futsunushi

:I agree. If you fail to separate allegory from fact, then you have lost all meaning Biblical writers have so eloquently put within stories. I personally believe that the first creation story (as well as other things in the Bible) should not be taken literally. This particular story was meant to give some sort of explanation of the origins of the universe, and God's role in its creation; but not to hold against rather convincing and logical modern theories. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 22:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::But you have to remember... 1 Timothy 3:16-17, "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." You also should bear in mind that if you interpret Scripture in its literal, grammatical, and historical context, you can't go wrong. Therefore, I believe, in this case that it should be taken literally, or the whole Bible would fall apart. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 22:39, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I'll have to disagree with you that "if you interpret Scripture in its literal, grammatical, and historical context, you can't go wrong." There is a myriad of examples that I can use to prove this wrong, but for this, I'll use the book of Revelations. In Chapter 5 Verse 6, Jesus Christ is described as a lamb with 7 horns and 7 eyes. If you ask me, that imagery is quite repulsive. This image is merely a symbol of Christ's universal power (7 horns) and knowledge (7 eyes). If you had taken that passage literally, however, you lose its meaning; so everything in the Bible most certainly cannot be taken literally. I believe this applies to Genesis as well. I doubt God wants us to sacrifice his gift of reasoning if the Bible contradicts it. I think the theologist Origen sums it up best: "What intelligent person will suppose that there was a first, a second and a third day, that there was evening and morning without the existence of the sun and moon and stars? Or that there was a first day without a sky? Who could be so silly as to think that God planted a paradise in Eden in the East the way a human gardener does, and that he made in this garden a visible and palpable tree of life, so that by tasting its fruit with one’s bodily teeth one should receive life? And in the same way, that someone could partake of good and evil by chewing what was taken from this tree? If God is represented as walking in the garden in the evening, or Adam as hiding under the tree, I do not think anyone can doubt that these things, by means of a story which did not in fact materially occur, are intended to express certain mysteries in a metaphorical way."--[[User:Trend|Trend]] 23:50, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Also, could I point out that you can't take one Biblical passage as proof of the truth of another. Nothing is proof of itself - you can't say "The Bible says that The Bible is correct, therefore The Bible is correct." [[User:JohnR28|JohnR28]] 14:51, 27 December 2008 (EST)

:: There are many problems with taking the Bible literally. Just for example, if we are to take the Bible literally, then we must also believe that Noah built an ark that housed 2 of every animal and insect on the face of the Earth. Seeing that we still discover new species on an almost daily basis, taking this story at face value as literal and factual seems ridiculous at best. - Dr. Hook June 29

I am going to answer those two arguments in order; First, concerning the Revelation, it is portrayed ''in the Bible'' as being a vision, so you're supposed to take that part as being a symbol, because that part of the Bible is, indeed, made up of symbols. At the same time, however, Genesis is ''not'' supposed to be taken as an allegory, but in its literal, historical, and grammatical ''context'', and since the Bible says it the way it does in Genesis, there is no reason why we ''should'' interpret it allegorically. Secondly, just as an example we all know that there are breeds of dogs that weren't here in the past, because people have bred certain types of dogs to get new ones. And, if you look at the dimensions of the ark in the Bible, it is ''very'' probable that all those animals would fit. Animals' DNA is packed with a great deal of variability, so you can see how all these new "species," if that's what you prefer to call it, could come about. I'm not arguing for evolution here, but for variation. [[User:DebateKid|DebateKid]] 13:56, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

:One of the reasons why we ''shouldn't'' take the first creation story (I am not saying the entire book of Genesis) literally is because it applies the limit of time to God; our knowledge of time and God's knowledge of time could be two entirely different ideas. Another reason is there are many inconsistencies within the Bible, including Genesis, that makes it difficult if not impossible to follow literally. For instance, take the two creation stories in Genesis. The order of creation in the first one is plants, then animals, and finally Adam. However, in the second story, Adam is created first, then plants, and finally Eve. If we take both literally, which one are we to believe? Pope John Paul II provides an excellent answer to the question on how we should interpret Genesis: "Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven." Literal translations of certain parts of the Bible should not be the basis of our reason. --[[User:Trend|Trend]] 16:38, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
::However the Papacy of the Catholic Church is not the autority on spiritual matters. Catholicism is a religion of apostates. [[User:Capercorn|Capercorn]] 11:24, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

You're idiots. The bible was written by good-intentioned men a long, long time ago; men who had no access to or knowledge of scientific fact. The bible is entirely irrelevant except as a document of cultural and - in some cases, especially the King James edition - literary interest. God does not exist, except in the minds of the feeble, the emotionally needy or the intellectually challenged. This so called encyclopedia is self-professed right-wing nonsense, and should be spurned by anyone who has either a brain or any common humanity. I myself stubled on it only by accident when I was surfing the net, my jaw slack with disbelief at the American preponderancy for belief in god and associated myths. Please, guys, read some books, get out and talk to people and broaden your horizons beyond this dull, enervating, servile reliance on things which are not and were never true.

Love and peace

chris larner

'''There are multiple creation stories:'''
Genesis 1 has one creation story (with the animals coming before Adam; Genesis 2 has a different story, with Adam coming before the animals (except in 1 English translation among many)

There are alos other creation stories in the Bible with inconsistent details. {{unsigned|Rjwalker}}

There are perfectly rational explanations for any apparent inconsistencies in the Bible. I read the creation story allegorically because the Word was communicated through human authors. Because of the human element the creation account can be read as religious instruction for the human working week and Sabbath rest. Whether you read Genesis as literal or not, is not as important as having faith that God exists, that He created the universe, the importance of keeping Sunday special and following His Word. {{unsigned|AdamB}}

==Ignorant_Illiteracy==
I don't understand it, therefore it's all rubbish! This tendency towards willing ignorance when pertaining to the Biblical Word of God isn't inconsistent with a person's total rejection of His will for mankind. Learning and understanding the Bible won't come about by the application of your own view of the world. The bashing comments found here aren't made by those that are seeking knowledge. They could've found those on the internet by typing in a few simple search words. Undoubtably there are feeble minded, emotionally needy or intellectually challenged people who choose to criticise ancient writtings originating thousands of years ago because they are unable to fathom their content. Of course this isn't an American preponderancy for ranting against something not understood by someone. Rather, it is the natural worldly man who engages in such infantile dialogue. Usually just prior to book burnings and massive social rallies against some imagined foe. Finally, there are no inconsistent details except to the willfully ignorant, and illiterate who've already chosen their own foolish intentions. But I have digressed a bit here. There is only one account given of the Creation in the book of Genesis. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." -Genesis 1:1. It is literal and chronological. What apparently has confused you is the recounting of it in Genesis 2 which is merely an account from a second perspective. Which is why it gives the precondition of: "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." -Genesis 2:4. Two perspectives of one event. Now that wasn't hard at all, was it? Why are there two pespectives given here? Well, you'll just have to read it yourself in order to fully understand that enigma.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:55, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with you, except that I still think that the universe was created billions of years ago, and that God's concept of time is beyond what we can ever know while on earth.--[[User:Freiberg|Freiberg]] 14:53, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Oh I'm sorry, I guess that all science, regardless of it's aim or purpose should be disregarded when the bible speaks otherwise on the same subject. America is really going down the tubes, and not because we have forgotten god as I'm sure you would like to remind me, but because too many Americans put too much stock in a book written thousands of years ago by, for the most part, uneducated men. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you don't take the Illiad or the Odyssey or anything else from Greek mythology as true. It's all allegorical and mythological. However you think the Bible is different simply because it hasn't lost popularity yet and it has 2000 of ignorant followers for you to point to as your backup. If you can show me any compelling evidence why i should believe in the Christian god, or ANY god for that matter I would be more than happy to listen, but I have grown up in all kinds of churches, all with different messages but the same bible, doesn't sound like the One Absolute Truth to me. And please don't label me as one who isn't seeking knowledge or as a "feeble minded, emotionally needy or intellectually challenged" person. Believe, me I have studied the Bible, from more than one perspective and with ever changing world views. It simply doesn't hold up to rational criticism.--[[User:tehstone|tehstone]] 16:56, 12 September 2007 (PST)

Oh, I am also sorry that you've grown up in all kinds of churches and don't know what the Word of God has, is and will reveal to mankind. My only guess is there are many apostate, man-made creeds that proport to be of the Judeo-Christian venue. Of any compelling evidence that I have seen in the historical record are the Hebrew tribes of Abraham that make up the nation of Israel. That the Father in Heaven has provided almost two thousand years to become heirs in His Sons house of Israel. That that time is almost over and that the final seven years is close at hand as outlined by all of the Prophets written in His book. That everything written has come true, is coming true and is about to come true is evident with every event reported as news. If you hang with people that subvert the Word of God then I wouldn't expect you to believe anything the Bible says either. Maybe you should do some independent studying and Bible studies with those that know something about the subject. I'll say a prayer for you so that you can connect with someone more knowledgable then myself.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 16:53, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

==In the Spirit==
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from The Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." -I Corinthians 2:14 When you have really studied, read, and understood the words of the Bible and seen how everything from Genesis to Revelations is in accordance with each other, this scripture will hold true. But, to the sophists, humanists, and assorted others that have already rejected His Words, even before reading them, it will remain an enigma to you. As you have already proven on this webpage that you just can't get it.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 13:45, 7 November 2007 (EST)

==Flawed First Premise==
I don't know if there's any coherent ''logical'' argument for literal readings. Allegory takes context into account, and recognises a range of other explanations (even that the text may not be divinely inspired). A literal interpretation tends to assume that the Bible is infallible - a flawed first premise based on intuition rather than reason, which makes any kind of rational debate impossible. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:07, 8 November 2007 (EST)
:How is the premise that the Bible is infallible, flawed? That premise is not based on intuition, but on the claims of the Bible itself, including that it's ultimate author was the infallible God. If that is correct, it must be infallible. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:43, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::You're quite right, Philip: ''if'' that is correct. That's a pretty big if. Effectively what you're saying here is that the Bible is right because it says so in the Bible. Your premise actually '''is''' based on intuition, because you're intuiting that the Bible is correct about always being correct.

::Put it this way: if I told you that I always tell the truth, you wouldn't necessarily believe it. That's exactly the scenario we have here: a source claiming to be infallible based on its own claims of infallibility. It's circular (flawed) logic, which makes it impossible to evaluate or discuss in a rational context.

::Nonetheless, the Biblical account of creation needn't be divinely inspired to be a fascinating and legitimate aspect of our mythological heritage. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 20:51, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:::No, I'm not saying that the Bible is right because it says so in the Bible. You are putting those words in my mouth—that is not what I said and not what I meant.
:::I was not offering all the considerable evidence that the claim is true; merely pointing out that the claim of infallibility is not a first premise, but rests on the claim of authorship, so it is not, as ''you'' claimed, a flawed first premise based on intuition rather than reason.
:::The Bible claims to be divinely inspired, and the evidence from the text itself (it's accuracy, consistency, etc.) is that this claim is true. It being true, it therefore follows that it is infallible. You may disagree with the claim, the evidence, or that the evidence supports the claim, but I have demonstrated that the ''deduction'' that the Bible is infallible is not a first premise and is based on premises and evidence, not on intuition.
:::Of course the Bible doesn't need to be divinely inspired to be interesting. But it does need to be divinely inspired to be considered an totally accurate and reliable history.
:::Do you have any "coherent logical argument" that it is allegory? Do you consider any parts of the Bible to be accurate history? If so, which parts?
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:18, 11 November 2007 (EST)
::::No disrespect intended, Philip, but that is exactly what you're saying: <blockquote>
"That premise is not based on intuition, but on the claims of the Bible itself, including that it's [sic] ultimate author was the infallible God."
</blockquote>
:::: Your claim is based on the Bible's claim that all its claims are correct because it claims to be written by God. Can you see where I'm going with this?
:::: Without wishing to be facetious, I would consider the reports of dietary advice from a talking snake to be allegory at best. ;-D As for authenticity, I believe Leviticus is by far the most historically accurate book in the entire Bible. By the way, it's nice to meet someone as civil as you on this site. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:44, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:::::It appears that you have read what you wanted to read in my statements.
:::::* I said that the claims appear to be true based on "the evidence from the text itself (it's accuracy, consistency, etc.)"
:::::* You claimed I said it appears to be true "because it claims to be written by God".
:::::See the difference?
:::::Why do you consider the talking snake account to be allegorical? Do you have a reason, or is it just "intuition"?
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:49, 12 November 2007 (EST)
::::::If you're seriously contending that snakes are physically and mentally capable of verbal communication, I don't think we can really continue this conversation. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:38, 12 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::No, I'm not contending that, because the Bible doesn't contend that, so your response indicates to me that you have a poor idea of what the Bible that you reject the historicity of actually says.
:::::::The Bible indicates that a serpent was used by Satan to deceive Eve. There is nothing there to indicate that snakes are normally capable of talking. You suggesting that I am contending that snakes are capable of talking is like suggesting that I contend that ventriloquists dummies "are physically and mentally capable of verbal communication". Of course they aren't, but that doesn't mean that they've never "spoken" to anybody.
:::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:28, 12 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::I don't know what version you're reading, Philip, but the KJV seems to say it pretty clearly:
<blockquote>
Now the serpent was more subtil [sic] than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
</blockquote>
::::::::Either the serpent is a metaphor (read: allegory) or we really did have talking snakes offering dietary advice to nudists. Or perhaps they were telepathic? ;D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:04, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:::::::::Revelation has a couple of references to Satan being known as the serpent, and it has long been the understanding of Christianity that the serpent was Satan or that Satan was speaking through or possessing the serpent, but even ignoring that, there is nothing in the passage you quoted to indicate that more than one snake was involved or that this was normal for snakes. You referred to "talking snakes", whereas the passage only refers to one, and the passage says nothing about "snakes [being] physically and mentally capable of verbal communication".
:::::::::If I said that a ventriloquist's dummy told me that I needed to eat more fruit, would you assume that I'm implicitly claiming that a ventriloquist's dummy is "physically and mentally capable of verbal communication"?
:::::::::I believe that the creation account in Genesis is literally true. However, I'm not a hyperliteralist, and recognise that the Bible does employ metaphor, parable, etc., but that it is possible to determine from the language and context when these are employed. The Bible says that a serpent spoke to Eve, but it doesn't say anything about snakes in general being capable of speech. That is you and other bibliosceptics reading into it what you want to read into it.
:::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:48, 13 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::::Fair enough. But if you're willing to acknowledge the existence of metaphor in the Bible, what clearer context could there be than a snake "speaking" to the world's first woman about a miraculous tree that bestows a moral compass? If the serpent was merely a figure of speech, then it's equally plausible that so was Eve/the garden/the six days of creation. The only possible literal interpretations are that either snakes/ a snake ''can'' speak when influenced by demonic possession, or that the ultimate manifestation of evil chose to disguise itself as a snake and gave himself vocal cords. With all due respect, Philip, both notions are absurd and beyond rational debate. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)
(unindent) Whilst I accept that there is metaphor in the Bible, I didn't say that I believe that the talking snake was a metaphor or a figure of speech. I don't.

Plenty of things could be more clearly metaphor than a snake speaking. Elsewhere in the Bible there is a metaphorical reference to trees clapping their hands. But if that reference said that when the trees clapped, a bird got caught between their hands and was squashed, we would not be justified in putting clapping trees down to metaphor. In Genesis, the talking snake said specific words and actually had a conversation with Eve, and she acted on that conversation. This context indicates that the story is not metaphorical, but literal.

Why are both notions absurd? You've provided no reasons at all; simply declared them to be so. I guess you are right though—there's going to be no rational debate if you simply declare things to be so.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:28, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:I'm saying the notion of a talking snake is absurd because there is no suggestion of it anywhere in the realm of empirical knowledge. I guess what I'm also saying is that I have no problems with you believing this stuff if it gets you through the night, but your arguments here are intellectually dishonest. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:01, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::If by "empirical knowledge", you mean things that you have personally observed, then I suppose that you think that you are communicating with something absurd, because you have not personally observed me.
::If, on the other hand, you will allow your "empirical knowledge" to stretch to what ''others'' have observed and recorded, then the talking snake is not absurd, because it was recorded in the Bible by someone who observed it.
::So just how do you define "empirical knowledge"?
::Furthermore, the claim is of a one-off situation with a supernatural basis, for which nobody today could expect to have empirical knowledge, so you're asking a bit much.
::How are my arguments intellectually dishonest? That appears to be an abusive ad-hominem argument, which is hardly the tactic of somebody with a valid argument.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:36, 14 November 2007 (EST)

:::It's not ad-hominem, Philip, simply an evaluation of your rationale. I'm saying that I haven't observed a talking snake, you haven't observed a talking snake, and there is no corroborating evidence or record outside the Bible to indicate that this ever took place. So by saying that it really happened because it was written in the Bible, its veracity depends on the claim it's trying to support (that the Bible is infallible). It's a return to circular logic.
:::[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:28, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::::The problem with that is that nobody is using the talking snake as evidence that the Bible is infallible, so there is no circle to the argument. If that's the basis for your comment about my intellectual dishonesty, then your evaluation is baseless. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)
:::::That's exactly how we got here, Philip. You asked me for a clear indication of allegory in Genesis, I cited the talking snake, and you insisted that there was no reason why it couldn't have really happened. I'm getting tired of running in circles, Philip. Every time I leave a comment here, I first re-read the thread in full to ensure my statements are consistent and credible. I'd appreciate it if you did the same. Now, shall we start again with rational discourse or fall to bickering? :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:19, 15 November 2007 (EST)
::::::I don't reread it unless I think I need to, and your last message doesn't give me any reason to think that I should have reread it this time. Yes, I disputed that it was allegory, arguing that it was literally correct, but I didn't claim that it therefore proved the Bible to be correct. Rather, my arguments are aimed at refuting your attempt to prove the Bible to be ''not'' literally correct rather than trying to prove the Bible to be literally correct. That is, you are saying "the Bible is not literally correct, for reason A". I'm ''not'' saying, "Reason A is wrong so the Bible is literally correct". Rather, I'm saying, "Reason A is wrong, so you have failed to show that the Bible is not literally correct". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:00, 16 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::But you are telling me that you have reason to believe a snake once spoke to a human being? The emphasis here being on 'reason'... [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 16:13, 18 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::: Yes, my ''reason'' is that it is recorded in a historical document that I consider to be reliable and accurate.
:::::::: Now let's go back a bit. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you consider it allegorical simply because you don't believe that it's literally true, not because of anything in the language that would suggest allegory. And you believe that it's not literally true because neither you nor I have seen a talking snake and there's no other corroborating evidence.
:::::::: Yet you believe that the book of Leviticus is the most historical in the Bible, despite it mostly comprising laws, not history, and despite neither you nor I witnessing any of it, and despite, for the most part at least, there being no corroborating evidence for it.
:::::::: Does that seem a bit inconsistent? Or is there a distinction here that I'm missing?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:31, 18 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::::That's a fair observation, but I didn't mean history in the sense of narrative. I consider Leviticus to be an accurate record of contemporary Israelite society, in line with Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis. Many of the practices it outlines appear to have been common to other cultures at the time (such as the taking of slaves as wives), and obviously many aspects have persisted in Orthodox Jewish culture today. But part of the reason is that it ''wasn't'' written as a history. It doesn't try to explain how the laws were given, only what the laws are.
:::::::::That's where so much of the Bible leaves me sceptical - the Old Testament particularly is full of remarkable assertions that have no backing anywhere else in gentile chronologies. Take for instance the Exodus - don't you find it remarkable that a whole subjugated race could up and leave Egypt overnight, without any mention in their masters' records? Or for that matter, the plagues that swept the nation and killed the firstborn? If we can't even find corroborating evidence for major historical events like that, what credence should we give to something that supposedly preceded written language and defies all human experience? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:50, 18 November 2007 (EST)

(unindent) Now here's another can of worms!

Fair enough, you have explained the distinction, which shows that my example of Leviticus was not a very good one. My point was that I'm sure that there's other examples of historical events which neither you nor I have seen (of course, using that as a criterion for an ancient historical event is silly anyway—you couldn't ''expect'' either of us to have seen it), and for which there is no other corroborating evidence, but which you accept anyway. Perhaps some event in ancient Roman or Egyptian history?

The Documentary Hypothesis has been long discredited.

Actually, Egyptian records ''do'' include accounts that match the Biblical accounts of the Israelites in Egypt. The problem is that most (not all) Egyptologists use a chronology that doesn't match the Biblical chronology, so are looking for the events in the wrong part (wrong time) of Egyptian history.

And there's ''lots'' of other Biblical accounts that are corroborated elsewhere. Even mentions of the snake. I seem to recall an Aboriginal creation story involving a snake, and an ancient Chinese character that included a snake in a reference to creation. See [[Great Flood]] for some examples of corroborating evidence related to the flood account.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 19 November 2007 (EST)

:Actually, I tend to be pretty sceptical of received wisdom. If we want to look at Classical history, for instance, I have great reservations about Homer's account of the Trojan War. On the other hand, something like Thucydides' ''History of the Peloponnesian War'' can be independently verified by the writings of Herodotus. And of course, we must consider the source - its context and potential bias. Like many of the historians I admire, I am wary of declaring any source a 'definitive version'.

:I realise the Documentary Hypothesis is no longer in vogue, but I believe there's nonetheless some substance to its claims. In any case, there is still common consensus that Leviticus originated from a priestly source and/or successive revisions by members of the priesthood. But we're getting off-track here.

:As regards Egyptian accounts of the Exodus, would you mind referencing them for me? I know the creation stories you're referring to, but it's probably best if you can reference them for me as well. Although... the thought just occurred to me that the Aboriginal story involves a Rainbow Snake as the Creator and a Wagyl which created the valleys and rivers. That's quite a different role from the deceiver in Genesis. If Genesis is literal truth, then the Dreamtime myths contradict it and cannot be used as evidence. If you could find me a non-Biblical Creation myth in which a man and woman are created in a garden and tricked by a talking snake into eating from a tree that makes them mortal, well, then you'd have a case... [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:31, 20 November 2007 (EST)

:: You've shifted the goalposts, it seems. You apparently ''reject'' that the talking snake is literal because of no corroborative evidence, but with other ancient history you are merely ''sceptical''. To be consistent, why not ''reject'' them also?
:: For Egyptian records of the Israelites, see [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1827/ here].
:: If the biblical history is true, then all people, including Chinese, Australian Aboriginal, etc. are descended from Adam and Eve, and also from Noah and his family. We would therefore expect that all these present-day people could potentially have historical accounts of creation, the flood, etc. Of course, some groups would have failed to pass down the history, and with many others it would have been corrupted along the way. So we should not expect all the extant accounts to agree on every detail, let alone have all the same details. Also, none of this means that these peoples would not have other stories with no historical basis.
:: So the question really is, does a given creation (etc.) story represent a corrupted version of the real history, or complete fiction? Assuming the biblical history is true, stories that bear no resemblance to it can be considered fiction and do not detract from the biblical account, whereas stories that bear more than a superficial or passing resemblance can be considered corroborative.
:: There is no single aboriginal creation account. There are many different aboriginal tribes, and there are a number of different stories. Some bear little or no resemblance to biblical accounts, but others bear remarkable similarities. You have asked for a story that has about five points of similarity with the biblical account (1. man and woman created; 2. in a garden; 3. tricked by a talking snake; 4. into eating from a tree; 5. that makes them mortal). I don't know of a story that has those five points, but there are a number of stories that have about five or more points. For example, one [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3264/106/ here] has about seven points: 1. man made by god (Baiame), 2. man and woman put into an ideal location; 3. they could eat everything; 4. except from one tree which was off-limits; 5. evil would result if they did; 6. the evil would affect their descendants also; 7. the woman ate from the tree. Of course there are points that differ, but the number of similarities speak of a corrupted account of the true (biblical) history.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:59, 20 November 2007 (EST)
:::I am certainly not shifting the goalposts, Philip. I am sceptical of uncorroborated historical narratives, but I am ''even more'' sceptical of uncorroborated historical narratives that defy the laws of physics. That's why I don't believe the Aboriginal story, either. Surely you can see where I'm coming from.
:::Your reference is intriguing, and I'll be sure to look into it later.
::: But "assuming the biblical history is true" - Do you see what you're doing here? You are '''asssuming''' it ''is'' true, when we're supposed to be objectively testing its truth. If other creation stories are given weight, but interpreted as 'corrupted', who's to say that the Biblical version isn't corrupted? If you're saying there is reason to believe Genesis is a complete and factually accurate account of events, you're going to need sources that verify that exactly.[[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 21:23, 20 November 2007 (EST)
:::: It ''is'' a shift of the goalposts, because until now you hadn't mentioned anything about the laws of physics.
:::: But now that you have raised that objection, I'm not actually sure that there's any evidence that any laws of physics were broken. If Satan possessed the snake, and it was Satan speaking, what laws of physics were broken?
:::: I was assuming that the biblical history is true ''for the sake of that particular argument''. Whether or not it actually is true is a separate (albeit relevant and related) argument.
:::: But how do you ''objectively'' test a historical event? Yes, you can see if others corroborate it, but lack of corroboration doesn't mean that it's false, although of course that doesn't mean it's true either.
:::: The biblical account is far less likely to be corrupted than aboriginal accounts due to it being in writing, particularly given the extreme care that the Jews gave to accurately copying it.
:::: What sort of sources are you referring to? I could quote plenty of people who agree that it's factually accurate, but I expect that you'd dismiss them for one reason or another. But there is plenty of evidence that the Bible as a whole (i.e. many individual details) is accurate, so it's reasonable to assume that if it's accurate on the details that can be checked, it's likely to be accurate on the details that can't be or can't yet be checked.
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:07, 21 November 2007 (EST)
::::: I would have thought an empirical understanding of the universe was implicit in a rational debate. Laws of physics would have been broken, because snakes have no capacity for speech. I suppose I could have said laws of biology, but physics is a more accurate term. A snake's physical makeup simply cannot produce human vocalisations.
:::::"Lack of corroboration doesn't mean that it's false, although of course that doesn't mean it's true either." This is called an argument from ignorance [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance], and really has no place in our discussion.
::::: You keep telling me there's "plenty of evidence" for the Bible's accuracy, and there may well be in terms of social hierarchy, customs and interactions with other nations. But the Bible is also full of extravagant claims that have no confirmation anywhere else - seas parting, staffs turning to snakes, pillars of fire and people turning to lumps of salt. So we have to employ reasonable doubt when the Bible's statements make no sense at an empirical level and have no independent verification.
:::::I wonder whether we should simply agree to disagree, given that we apparently have very different ideas about what constitutes a 'reasonable expectation'. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 15:56, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::::: Perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my previous post. When I asked what laws of physics were broken if it was Satan speaking, I had in mind that he was not using the snakes vocal chords, but using whatever means he would normally use to speak. So if it was Satan speaking without using the snake's vocal chords, then what physical—or biological (that's a better claim)—laws ''were'' broken?
:::::: An argument from ignorance is to argue that something ''is'', or is likely to be, the case despite a lack of evidence. I was not doing that, and my point that it "doesn't mean it's true either" was intended to make that very point. But to argue that something ''is not'' or ''is not likely'' the case because one has no evidence is no better, yet that is what you are doing.
:::::: What makes the "extravagant" claims extravagant? And how do they make no sense at an empirical level? As you seem to be getting frustrated with this, I'll cut to the chase and point out our different 'reasonable expectations'. (The talking snake is a little different to the sea parting, etc., but now that you've raised those examples, it's getting more to the point.)
:::::: You are working on an assumption that everything has to obey the laws of physics, and as things like seas parting appear to go against the laws of physics, you are judging the veracity of these accounts accordingly.
:::::: I, however, work on the assumption that God created those laws of physics, and He is therefore capable of overriding them when He chooses. I hasten to add, however, that by His nature, God does not capriciously change or tinker with those laws, yet may ''very occasionally'' override them.
:::::: So is it reasonable to accept that Moses was able to part the waters of the Red Sea by holding his staff out? No, it is not reasonable. But is it reasonable to accept that the omnipotent Creator God, who created the laws of physics and the water and the wind, etc., was able to part the waters of the Red Sea? Yes, that is entirely reasonable.
:::::: So I suggest that your rejection of the claims of the Bible is ''based on'' an ''a priori'' rejection of the existence and/or nature of God. Thus a rejection of the claims of the Bible is not based on reason and intelligence, but on belief and worldview.
:::::: Furthermore, if your rejection is of the ''existence'' of God, then your belief is contrary to evidence, such as the evidence that everything that began has a cause; the Christian says that the universe's cause was God, and the atheist says that the universe had no cause (or something that amounts to the same thing) ''contrary to the evidence''. (And before you object, God had no beginning (He is eternal, outside of time) so needs no cause.) So the Christian view is more reasonable, rational, and logical.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:21, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::::::I am withdrawing from this discussion. Your statements may be internally consistent, but you have demonstrated to me that it is impossible to prove or even defend the existence of an interventionist god or the infallibity of the Bible in any meaningful rational context. Thankyou for your time, patience and persistence. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:20, 22 November 2007 (EST)
::::::::Thanks for the civil debate.
::::::::"''Your statements may be internally consistent...''": Thanks. I think that reinforces the point I made in my last post, that there's nothing inherently irrational or illogical in believing the Bible to be accurate history. The problems only arise when one has a starting assumption that God, at least as described in the Bible, does not exist.
::::::::"''...you have demonstrated to me that it is impossible to prove or even defend the existence of an interventionist god or the infallibity of the Bible in any meaningful rational context.''": Not true. I was making a defensive argument against your claim that the biblical creation account is not literal history. Acknowledging that my statements are internally consistent is acknowledgement that the creation account cannot be shown to be allegory on the basis of the bible, as distinct from bringing in extra-biblical considerations, such as atheistic worldviews. And because I was making a defensive argument ''against'' your claim, I was not, for the most part at least, making an argument ''for'' the opposing claim that the account is historical. So to now claim that I failed in that is unfair, because I did not attempt that.
:::::::: But even though I sometimes do argue that one can "prove" the biblical view (depending on what one accepts as "proof"), at another level the whole point is that, as we are discussing unique (one-off) past events, that are therefore inherently not amenable to empirical investigation, one cannot expect anyone to "prove" the the account. However, I am fully convinced that if one looks at the available evidence with an open mind, one can make a very good defence of the biblical account and the existence of God.
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:42, 22 November 2007 (EST)

== But What is really important here? ==

Rather then all this constant bickering between Super-SCIENCE-Athiests, and Young-Earth Creationists, we have to realise the MAIN duty as Christians. To tell others that they are evil sinners, that Jesus suffered, died, suffered Hell's fires, and ROSE AGAIN, for their sins. That is the Great Commission. For Young-Earth Creationists, their belief in a 6,000 year old earth, is just another way of showing their faith, in an ALL POWERFUL God. Everything else is trivial. Souls are important thing. --[[User:Capercorn]] <small> [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] </small> 09:23, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:What is really important is what God says. If God says that He created the world in six days, and we choose to disbelieve that, we are rejecting what God has plainly said. It is important to ''believe'' what He has said. Nothing undermines our witnessing to unbelievers more than to show that we do not ourselves believe what God has plainly said. As Jesus Himself said, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you don’t believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?" (John 5:46–47) And in John 3:12: "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" If we don't believe what Moses wrote about Earth's history, how can we expect people to believe what Jesus says about Him being able to save us from our sins?
:Furthermore, what is sin? Where do you find the Bible explaining what sin is? In Genesis! If we allegorise that, we have allegorised sin, so that leaves Jesus to save us from an allegory!?
:Yes, saving souls is the goal. The method, used by Paul when speaking to non-Jews, i.e. those who did not already have Genesis, was to start at the beginning and tell them who God was and where they came from: God was the Creator who made man. You don't start a story half-way through. You start it at the beginning, explaining creation. New Tribes Mission, for one, has had great success in teaching the Gospel starting at Genesis. Creationists have had great success in reaching people who think that science has proven the Bible wrong, by showing that it is the atheistic origins myth (evolution, the Big Bang, etc.) that is wrong, not the Bible.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:58, 11 November 2007 (EST)
Science has supposedly disproved creation in six days, but it does not disprove the concept of God. The scientific account of creation actually supports the idea of a creator. Rather than a universe which is static, evidence points to a creation event, the big bang, indicating a birth to the universe.

The Genesis version of creation was written for the Hebrews. I read the 7-day creation account simply as a way to illustrate the Sabbath rest. I think an important distinction needs to be made with the Old Testament as it says in the New Testament it the old covenant is obsolete. The New Testament is written for us and this should be the foundation of our belief.

{{unsigned|AdamB}}

:I totally reject that science has disproved creation in six days [the word "supposedly" was added later]. Perhaps you could explain to me how it has done this?
:I agree that the scientific account of creation supports a creator—that's what creation science is all about!
:Although the Big Bang theory does propose a beginning, it does not propose that the universe was created by God. It proposes that nothing became something for no reason.
:God said to work for six days and rest on the seventh ''because'' he took six days to create and rested on the seventh. So what does that mean if He ''didn't'' actually take six days?
:The New Testament did make the old ''covenant'' obsolete. That doesn't change the ''history'' of the Old Testament.
:If you think that the New Testament should be the foundation of our belief, why is it that Jesus founded so much of what He said on the Old Testament? Including endorsing the creation account?
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:47, 13 November 2007 (EST)

You make some great points, but couldn't Genesis 1 be read as six periods, or creation steps instead of six literal days? Regards, Adam
:No, it can't be.
:# "Day" is defined as comprising an evening and a morning (i.e. an Earth rotation) (as well as a second definition of the daylight portion of a day).
:# Each reference to the six days again references the evening and morning.
:# The Hebrew word for "day" (''yom''), just like its English equivalent, never means anything other than a normal day when used with a number ("second day", "third day", "six days", etc.).
:# Jesus said that man was made male and female ''at the beginning of creation''. If the days were long periods of time, man would have been created very late. Imagine a line representing a timescale of 14 billion years, and imagine where humans appeared on that timescale. It would be indistinguishable from the end of the line.
:# Making the days long periods of time would mean that plants (including fruit trees) survived for millions of years (if a day equals millions of years) without other life, including presumably bees to pollinate them. Surviving two 24-hour days, on the other hand, is no problem.
:#Adam was created on day 6 and lived through at least day 7. How long could day 7 have been?
:These are just the reasons I can think of off the top of my head.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:47, 14 November 2007 (EST)
::But here is my arguement, is belief in Biblical Inerancy necessary for salvation? If so, prove it to me with scripture --[[User:Capercorn]] <small> [[User Talk:Capercorn|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Capercorn|contribs]] </small> 13:55, 21 November 2007 (EST)
:::No, belief in biblical inerrancy is not a requirement of salvation. Just as a virus checker is not a requirement of a computer connected to the Internet. But in both cases, they won't perform anywhere near as well. Just as computers can be "destroyed" by a virus, a belief in evolution has destroyed the faith of many people. Just as the purpose of a computer might be to communicate with others, not destroy viruses, the aim of a Christian is to witness to others, not to argue about creation. But just as destroying viruses is vital to achieving the purpose of communicating with others, demolishing anti-God arguments is vital in witnessing to others. As Paul said, ‘We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ’ (2 Corinthians 10:5). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 21 November 2007 (EST)

==Should we still believe it?==
Face it, the story was written thousands of years ago. Back in those days people believed in the Greek and Roman gods and other strange now disproved things. So, should we take it word for word or as just what people believed back in those days. In fact is it even important knowing the specifics; God made the earth, that is all that is important. --[[User:Ih8stuff|Ih8stuff]] 06:37, 20 February 2008 (EST)
: Yes, the story was written thousands of years ago. That is, much closer to the time it happened (or when it happened), so would be more likely accurate than one written today. Even today, people believe in strange and disproved things, such as astrology, mediums, and the like. So, should we take evolution word for word what people say today or as just what people believe today? If the fact that God made the Earth is the only thing that is important, why did He include all the rest? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:59, 20 February 2008 (EST)

==Faith in Christ Versus Faith In The Bible==
As a Christian, I accept that Christ is the Son of God. I am and have always been concerned by the Biblical Literalism movement; in my opinion, proponents of this belief frequently elevate the Bible itself to an object of worship, which smacks uncomfortably of idolatry to me. Christ said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." He did not say "The Bible is the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Whence comes the notion that everything in the Bible should be and must be read literally? We know that Christ taught through parables--parables that were NOT to be taken literally, but were instead to be taken as lessons for how His followers should live their own lives. Why would He adopt that method of teaching in His incarnation among us, but eschew it when revealing His Word to the prophets?

Moreover, there is the question of ''which'' Bible is infallible and literal truth. It is undeniable fact that the Bible has been copied, translated and revised many times in the past two millennia. Typically, such translations and revisions were undertaken by rulers with secular agendas to push. Now: if we accept that the Bible is the whole and complete Word of God, then any alteration must perforce make it other than complete. We must then ask which version is the true and unadulterated version. Is it the original texts of the original books of the Old and New Testament? If so, then we must acknowledge that there have been ''many'' changes; a little casual scholarship (or even a simple comparison with the Torah) reveals that. Is the whole and complete Word of God the modern King James Bible? In that case, we must question why He allowed His Word to remain flawed and incomplete for well over a thousand years.

The argument that the changes are only superficial, and don't represent a real change in the Word, simply don't hold water; again, study of Bible history will reveal that some of these changes were extremely significant. Up through relatively recent times, the Apocrypha still appeared in many Bibles; many Christians today are unaware that these texts even exist.

Further, there is the issue of selectivity. The majority of Christians who adhere to the notion that the Bible is the complete, literal, and immutable Word of God don't actually practice what they preach. They do not follow the Old Testament laws concerning foods, clothing, hair, and the disposal of wastes, just as an example. The standard defense for this is that these laws were rendered null and void by the New Covenant; however, I have yet to find any Bible passage that actually contains such a revocation. If the authority on which Bible adjurations are still valid and which are not does not, in fact, come from the Bible, then it comes from man--and is therefore not infallible.

For these reasons, and not without considerable soul-searching and earnest prayer, I find myself unable to accept the notion of Biblical literalism. The Bible is a good and holy book; it is, in fact, THE holy book. It contains the most profound wisdom ever set down in writing. What it is not, as far as I'm concerned, is a roadmap to Heaven. It is, instead, a map to the beginning of a road. That road is a rocky, steep, and narrow one. It's very hard to walk. It ends in a hill called Golgotha. However, Christ has made us a promise: He will walk that road with us...every step of the way.

[[User:BenP|BenP]] 08:47, 28 April 2008 (EST)

:There's a big difference between worshipping the Bible and treating it as inerrant. There's also a significant difference between reading the Bible literally and reading it plainly, or reading it the way it was meant to be understood. Strict literalism would read the parables, metaphors, figures of speech, etc. as literal, but most Christians don't do that, instead reading them the way they were meant: as parables, metaphors, etc. But a fair bit of the Bible is ''history'', and this was meant to be read as ''history'', which means that it is not metaphor, etc., but actual ''history''. This includes, for example, the creation account.
: Jesus ''did'', in effect, say that the Bible was the truth. He, along with other biblical writers, quoted from it as authoritative. See [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3112/ here] for more.
: "''It is undeniable fact that the Bible has been copied, translated and revised many times in the past two millennia.''": No, it's not undeniable. I deny it, for starters. Okay, I better qualify that. Yes, it has been copied many times. But when the Jews copied it (the Old Testament) they did so with an overriding desire to ensure that it was accurate, employing various methods to guarantee it's accuracy, such as counting the number of words on a line, lines, on a page, etc., and comparing those figures with previous tallies. And we have an enormous number of manuscripts of various parts of the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) which show very little in the way of changes.
: Yes, it has been translated many times, but unlike bibliosceptic charges that I've often heard and as your statement might infer, this is ''not'' a ''series of translations'', but numerous "original" translations. That is, most modern English translations have been made from the ''original'' languages, not from translations of translations of translations, etc. So that being the case, your comment about it having been "translated ... many times" seems rather pointless.
: No, it has not been "revised many times". Apart from being translated into English, the Bibles we have today are as close as we can make them the originals.
: Those that believe in inerrancy generally believe that inerrancy applies to the originals, not to copies or translations, despite how close the latter are to the originals.
: The changes due to copying and translation ''are'' only superficial. The Apocrypha is a separate issue.
: Believing the Bible to be inerrant and not following Old Testament regulations does not mean that we don't practice what we preach. As you mention being aware of, the punishments and rituals given to the Israelites in Old Testament times are not applicable to Christians. Do you believe in the Trinity? That's not explicitly mentioned either, but it's clear from a careful reading of the Bible. Similarly, that Old Testament regulations don't apply is also clear from a careful reading and understanding.
: By not accepting biblical infallibility, you make yourself the judge of which parts are true and which are not. That road is a steep, downhill, dangerous, road.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:33, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

::Philip,
::The problem I see is that even those who claim to subscribe to the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy engage in acts of judgement and evaluation. I honestly don't believe it's possible to read the Bible without doing so.

::Consider, for example, your assertion that the triune nature of God is clear "from a careful reading of the Bible." It wasn't so clear to many of the early scholars of the Church; as I'm sure you know, the debate over the nature of God, and over whether Christ was mortal man, was quite involved. While we may conclude that the scholars who could not reconcile themselves to the notion of the Trinity were mistaken, I think it would be unfair to suggest that they were mistaken based on a less-than-careful reading of the Scriptures.

::Likewise, the notion that it is evident from a careful reading of the Bible that the old covenant no longer applies is, I think, unfair. It is not evident to Messianic Jews, for example; nor do I think that the assumption can be made that no practitioners of Messianic Judaism have carefully read the Scriptures. Certainly, there are passages in the New Testament which can be read as indicating that the old law was fulfilled, and thus no longer in effect, but this is by definition interpretation. Mark 7:18, for instance, can be read as a declaration that all foods are now clean (though I will note that not all translations make that clear.) However, the passage taken in context discusses the practice of washing hands before a meal.

::There is also considerable evidence in the New Testament which would indicate the converse: that the old laws ARE still in effect...at least some of them, if not all. Christ did, after all, say that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was fulfilled. There is also the matter of Acts 15, wherein it is affirmed (by James, I believe, though I could be mistaken) that certain of the prohibitions on food apply to Gentiles coming to God--no blood, no animals that have been strangled, and so forth--but that these have been kept minimal in an effort to make the transition easier.

::My point in all of this is simply to demonstrate that it is possible to read the Bible carefully and mindfully and still reach interpretations that are different from those reached by other, equally careful and mindful readers. All readers, I would argue, engage in such judgement. I think it is also important to remember that the vast majority of them are engaging in such judgement based on modern texts--not on familiarity with the autographic manuscripts, or even with, for instance, Textus Receptus.

::Thus, the question remains: how do we determine with absolute certainty the intent of the original authors of the Scriptures, with respect to which sections were meant as factual history and which were meant as allegory? How can we be certain that, in making such judgements, we are not engaging in precisely the sort of selective analysis which you identify as perilous?

::Please understand: my skepticism is not entered into lightly. While I would never pretend to be a scholar of Scripture on a par with those who have debated these issues since the founding of the Church, I do base my beliefs and my understanding upon the most careful and thorough reading of which I am capable. In this, I confess to being at something of a handicap, as I am not a student of ancient languages (though an extremely patient friend who happens to be a rabbi is laboring with remarkable patience to teach me some Hebrew in our limited free time.) Ultimately, I can only work within my understanding, and hope through prayer and effort to come to a more complete understanding in time.

::''(As a side note, I would like to thank you for not taking me to issue for improperly conflating the concepts of Biblical literalism and inerrancy. I recognize that these are distinct, though related, concepts, and it was inexcusably sloppy writing and thinking on my part not to differentiate between them.)''

::Respectfully yours in Christ,

::[[User:BenP|BenP]] 05:14, 29 April 2008

::: I said that by not accepting biblical infallibility, you make yourself the judge of which parts are ''true'' and which are not. Judging which were applicable for the Jews and which are still applicable now is a different thing altogether. For example, rejecting the historicity of the creation and flood accounts often leads to rejecting other "unscientific" historical accounts, such as the virgin birth or Jesus rising from the dead (neither of which are "scientifically possible"). Judging whether or not to continue practising circumcision is not quite in the same league.
::: Messianic Jews likely still practice circumcision, but don't practice animal sacrifices. So even they recognise that the old covenant no longer applies.
::: Certainly there are parts where different people can come to different interpretations, but there are also parts where the teaching is sufficiently clear. Sure, there are parts where it is not ''crystal clear'', and there have therefore been small groups that have had different views, but there will always be those who disagree for some reason, and we shouldn't allow people who prefer their own opinions over clear teaching to cause us to think that it's not really that clear. For example, as mentioned above, there are those who call themselves Christian who don't actually believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
::: I don't think it's true to say that the vast majority are relying on modern translations. Most probably rely on what their Minister preaches, and he is relying on what the leading commentators say, and they have studied the text in the original languages.
::: How do we determine with absolute certainty? Well, for a start, it depends on what you mean by "absolute certainty". Are you ''absolutely'' certain that your parents named you Ben? Perhaps the nurse wrote it down wrong, and your parents decided to stick with it? The point is that we can be ''sufficiently certain'' of many things, but if you are inclined to ''not'' believe, perhaps one can't be ''absolutely'' certain. But to be ''realistic'', as opposed to ''absolutely'' certain, then yes, we can be sure, in the vast majority of cases at least, what the authors meant. See for example in [[biblical creation account]], the sections titled "Length of the days" and "Narrative or poetry?".
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:53, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::...then, really, we're talking about different things here. It seems as if we agree on most points. We accept the truth (that should really probably be Truth) of the Bible; we both accept that certain portions of that Truth are literal and certain portions are allegory. We simply disagree as to the specifics of which is which.

::::I really don't think that you can characterize those with different interpretations as "small groups." Going back to the Apocrypha (and, yes, I realize that you consider them a distinct issue, but I think the issue of whether a given book is Scripture inspired by God and useful for training in righteousness is a pretty significant judgement call) consider the fact that the Roman Catholic canon embraces several books not considered canon by most Protestant denominations. No matter how you slice it, that's an interpretation which has led to a large group of people either wrongly embracing what should not be part of the canon, or wrongly excluding what should be part of the canon.

::::We can argue about whether practicing circumcision is in the "same league" as rejecting the Immaculate Conception or the Virgin Birth, but personally, I'd really rather not go down that road. I don't know how much weight God puts on one of His commandments over another. The consumption of shellfish doesn't seem like a particularly big deal to me, but it's referred to as an abomination in Leviticus, and that's pretty strong language.

::::Your points above really highlight what I've been saying: nobody (at least to my knowledge) reads all of the injunctions in the Bible with the same weight. A literal reading of the Bible would tend to lead one to believe that the dome of the firmament is solid, and that (as it says in Genesis) it separates "the waters above" from "the waters below." This is by no means an interpretation limited to those who lack understanding of the Bible; St. Augustine and Martin Luther, for instance, explicitly ascribed to the notion of an impenetrable and solid firmament holding back the waters above.

::::Despite this, very few prominent voices today in the Christian community continue to support the notion of a solid firmament. Most seem to accept modern astronomy as factual. What we have, therefore, is a situation where something that was clearly and evidently literal truth to some of the greatest minds in the history of Christianity is no longer clearly and evidently literal truth to many Christians today.

::::What are we to make of this? Is it that those who reject the solid firmament as literal truth are misguided? Or that even those who earnestly and painstakingly seek to know what is literal and what is allegorical in the Bible may, at times, be mistaken?

::::For that same reason, I have always been leery of relying too heavily on "what the leading commentators say." The Pharisees were the leading commentators of their day; we know what Christ had to say about their leadership, and about what happened to those who chose to follow their commentary.

:::: [[User:BenP|BenP]] 19:36, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

::::: The reason that believing the virgin birth and practising circumcision are not in the same league is that one is a (claimed) historical fact and the other is a practice that is commanded. They are totally different things. The virgin birth is not a ''commandment''.
::::: It's not a "literal" reading that would lead one to read that the "firmament" was solid. Rather, it's reading it in an older translation, such as the Authorised version, or one based on that, that mistranslated the Hebrew word[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=firmament]. The Hebrew word means "expanse", which is what most modern versions render it as. Believing it to not be solid has nothing to do with modern astronomy.
::::: I agree about not relying "too heavily" on what the commentators say, and I was not suggesting that one do that. I was merely pointing out that, indirectly, this is what most probably do, rather than relying solely on their own reading of modern text.
::::: By the way, I was sent [http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/law2.htm this article] the other day, and it directly addresses your question about the status of the Old Testament laws.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:19, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Hmm. Well, I could suggest that God's commandments should be given at least as much weight as claimed fact, but then you'd probably (and rightly) point out that that's placing works before faith--so I'll concede the point.
::::::The mistranslation issue you raise, it seems to me, perfectly illustrates the point of concern I originally voiced. If one mistranslated word can lead the greatest religious thinkers of their time to a significantly incorrect conclusion about the nature of the universe, then doesn't that argue that issues of translation ''aren't'' trivial? I'm willing to concede the point that modern translations reflect the best efforts of the best scholars available to return to the intended sense of the original texts, but let's bear in mind that "best efforts" doesn't necessarily equal "perfect efforts." It's difficult to be certain that you've captured the sense of the autographic texts when, in many cases, the autographic texts simply aren't available.
::::::Ultimately, there's my sticking point. I'm just not convinced that post-Textus eclecticism has resulted in an edition totally free of potential "firmament/expanse" issues. Consequently, I cannot claim with confidence that I know which portions of the Bible reflect literal truth and which reflect allegorical truth. Nor, ultimately, am I certain that I need to. The Bible makes it clear that no man can know the mind of the Almighty; faith, at its heart, is not about knowledge and proof, but about trust.
::::::Thank you for the link to the article; it's fascinating reading. One interesting point of note is the assertion that the Ten Commandments are no longer in force--and yet the Ten Commandments continue to hold a central position in many churches (and in many of the debates on religion currently being fought in this country.) I'd be curious to know your opinion on the issue.
::::::[[User:BenP|BenP]] 17:21, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::: It's not the weight, it's the different types of things. Commandments can be changed. History cannot.
::::::: I never said that translation issues are trivial, and what I did say about translations was to do with modern translations. But even so, a mistranslation on this point may indeed have misled some, but this is hardly a major doctrinal point. Luther seems to have mentioned it almost in passing, and Augustine with not much more importance, from what I can determine from a Google search.
::::::: I'm not claiming that modern translations are error-free, but just because there is some small scope for errors does not mean that one can almost-arbitrarily dismiss clear teaching in order to accommodate secular thinking. True, no man can know the mind of God, but the very fact that God has given us a lot of information about Him shows that He knows we are capable of knowing ''that much'' about Him.
::::::: When I was growing up, I think that I believed that Ten Commandments had to be followed. But over the years I came to realise that Christians are not under the law, and that applies even with the Ten Commandment. However, even though Christians are not under the law, one of the several reasons for the law was to keep us within what could be called our "design parameters". So, for example, Christians don't have to observe every Saturday as the Sabbath (or even every Sunday), but we were not designed for continuous work; we were designed in such a way that we need to rest periodically, such as one day out of seven. So even though we are not obliged to observe the sabbath, it is still prudent to do so, or at least something equivalent (e.g. ministers work on the Sunday but take Monday or another day off instead). So the Ten Commandments in particular are still a useful guide to good practice, even though we are no longer required to observe them.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:35, 2 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::::I'm not entirely sure I'm convinced of the validity of your first claim. If God exists outside time, then He can, in fact, change history; He is not bound by the linear progression of events. We would, however, likely be unaware of His alterations, as those of us bound by a linear perception of time would simply believe that history had always been that way (indeed, for us, it would be true.)
::::::::It's entirely possible that God is constantly changing history, and that we remain utterly unaware of it. Whether he would do so is another matter entirely; Descartes and his adherents, just for instance, would likely argue against such a notion. Ultimately, since there's no way of knowing, the best course of action is to accept Occam's Razor and assume that the history with which we're familiar is true and stable.
::::::::I'm honestly also not convinced that the age of the earth is more of a major doctrinal point than the nature of division between the heavens and the earth. I think it has been ''conflated'' with major doctrinal points--most specifically, Original Sin--but is not one and the same. It is possible to read the creation account as allegorical and still accept the doctrine of Original Sin.
::::::::Google is an appallingly poor resource for serious historical scholarship, sadly. Perhaps one day that will change. The majority of my library is still in boxes in the basement until I can get the new shelves put up in the study, but I'll see if I can find some solid sources to recommend with respect to the whole firmament issue; I know I have a good translation of Luther somewhere, though I don't believe I have a similarly-solid source for Augustine.
::::::::The Ten Commandments issue is interesting, and I wonder if it wouldn't be worth creating a distinct topic dedicated to it. Several questions present themselves: if the Commandments aren't part of the new covenant, do Christian efforts to create monuments to them constitute idolatry? On the other hand, if it could be clearly established that the Ten Commandments are ''not'' part of modern Christian doctrine, then I think that would significantly alter the tenor of public debate over displays including them--they would thus be strictly historical, and a display dedicated to them would be no different in a legal sense than a display of the Justinian Code, or the Code of Hammurabi, or the Declaration of Independence.
::::::::[[User:BenP|BenP]] 15:21, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

==Literalness of the Scripture==
So if I'm to understand what some here are arguing correctly, are we to assume that Noah literally looked into God's eye and found some big heap of grace? [[User:Quid|Quid]]
:Huh? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

I watched a programme last night by Richard Dawkins, the prince of atheism, on his love of evolution, who basically pushed evolution as fact and proof that there is no God. Taking his personal beliefs as proven fact. Why is it that some scientists think that nothing is beyond them? If you say the theory of evolution is a proven fact doesnt all this just prove that the first chapters of Genesis are not strictly literal. Big deal, so what? Is doesnt dispove the existence of God. Is this important anyway? as long as you believe in God and in Jesus Christ. regards, Adam