• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Christians, Your Best Evidence That The Bible Is The "Word Of God"

Skwim

Veteran Member
Or, in the case of Jews, the Tanakh.

Please feel free to define "the word of god" however you wish:

a) Gods' very own words, which were inerrantly and infallibly transcribed.
b) God's very own ideas, instructions, and recountings which he inspired others to inerrantly write down in their own manner.
c) God's very own ideas, instructions, and recountings which he inspired others to write down in their own manner.
d) ______________________________your own definition____________________________ .
Note that it will help if you preface your first response with your choice here so everyone is on the same page when replying to your comments.



That out of the way,



What is the best evidence that the Bible is the "word of god"?


.
 

2ndpillar

Well-Known Member
Or, in the case of Jews, the Tanakh.

Please feel free to define "the word of god" however you wish:

d) The Law and the prophets____________________________ .
What is the best evidence that the Bible is the "word of god"?
.

Matthew 5:17-18 & John 10:35
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Matthew 5:17-18 & John 10:35
Exactly why do consider

7 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.​
and

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
to be evidence that the Bible is the "word of god"? I ask because I fail to see the connection. Why couldn't these remarks simply be the creation of a creative human mind?

.
 
Last edited:

Nova2216

Active Member
My answer -

(A) - Gods' very own words, which were inerrantly and infallibly transcribed.

One word - Harmony.

Harmony is the friend of truth. I know the bible is the word of God b/c of its harmony. No other religious book even comes close. There a internal evidences and external evidences which prove the bible is the word of God.

(Ps.119:160) - 160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Thanks
 

1213

Well-Known Member
...
What is the best evidence that the Bible is the "word of god"?
.

The evidence that convinces me is:

1. Things go as Bible tells.

2. Bible has knowledge that I think people would not have had without God (for example one continent at the beginning).

3. Teachings like “love your enemy” is not something people seem to say without God.

4. No one has shown any real error or contradiction in the Bible.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
The evidence that convinces me is:

1. Things go as Bible tells.
How about those things that don't go as the Bible tells?

Matthew 24:30-31, 34
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
.
.

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.​

Still waiting. And

Zechariah 10:11
“Trouble will pass over the sea and stir up waves in the sea; all the depths of the Nile will be dried up, the pride of Ashur will be brought down, and the scepter of Egypt will leave.​

It never happened.


2. Bible has knowledge that I think people would not have had without God (for example one continent at the beginning).
Interesting. What is your book, chapter, and verse?


3. Teachings like “love your enemy” is not something people seem to say without God.
Well Buddhism, which does not profess a god and predates Jesus, says,

“Do not return evil to your adversary; Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, Maintain justice for your enemy, Be friendly to your enemy.”
Which isn't far from “love your enemy


4. No one has shown any real error or contradiction in the Bible.
Three among many, many examples.


2 Kings 8:26
26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

2 Chronicles 22:2
2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.



Genesis 10:24
Arphaxad was the father of Shelah. Shelah was the father of Eber.

Luke 3:35
Nahor was the son of Serug. Serug was the son of Reu. Reu was the son of Peleg. Peleg was the son of Eber. Eber was the son of Shelah.
36 Shelah was the son of Cainan. Cainan was the son of Arphaxad. Arphaxad was the son of Shem. Shem was the son of Noah. Noah was the son of Lamech.



2 Samuel 24:1

24 Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel....”

1 Chronicles 21:1
21 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.


.

.
 
Last edited:

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
Easily the accuracy in the fulfillment of the prophecies that the written Word of God lists. There is too many to list here. I believe that there is nothing that does not go as the bible tells us and it is only misinterpretation and misunderstandings of those who do not know or do not believe the scriptures IMO. For example I believe much the OP's claims (who has an Athiest agenda) are nonsense and most of his claims are based in not understanding the scritures and can be answered here liked if anyone would like more information.
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
Easily the accuracy in the fulfillment of the prophecies that the written Word of God lists. There is too many to list here. I believe that there is nothing that does not go as the bible tells us and it is only misinterpretation of those who do not know or do not believe the scriptures IMO.
So, because Bible says “Trouble will pass over the sea and stir up waves in the sea; all the depths of the Nile will be dried up, the pride of Ashur will be brought down, and the scepter of Egypt will leave." you contend this actually happened despite the fact there is absolutely no record of the event anywhere. Don't you think such a catastrophic event, which would have left millions of Egyptians without water for their crops and animals and perhaps even dying of thirst themselves be big enough for some kind of mention in the many texts of old Egypt. Sure it would. Egyptians were recording just about everything that went on in those days.

But, nada. Not a mention of the Nile EVER drying up during the period in question.

As for misinterpretation, of course we don't have the source texts by which to compare our English translations, but to claim that god's word " all the depths of the Nile will be dried up," means the opposite: "all the depths of the Nile will not be dried up" borders on the ludicrous.

.
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
So, because Bible says “Trouble will pass over the sea and stir up waves in the sea; all the depths of the Nile will be dried up, the pride of Ashur will be brought down, and the scepter of Egypt will leave." you contend this actually happened despite the fact there is absolutely no record of the event anywhere. Don't you think such a catastrophic event, which would have left millions of Egyptians without water for their crops and animals and perhaps even dying of thirst themselves be big enough for some kind of mention in the many texts of old Egypt. Sure it would. Egyptians were recording just about everything that went on in those days.

But, nada. Not a mention of the Nile EVER drying up during the period in question.

As for misinterpretation, of course we don't have the source texts by which to compare our English translations, but to claim that god's word " all the depths of the Nile will be dried up," means the opposite: "all the depths of the Nile will not be dried up" borders on the ludicrous.

.

Dear friend, there are many bible prophecies that have been fulfilled in the bible very specific in detail and have been recorded in the historical records for all to see. There are many unfulfilled prophecies that are specific to the end times that are yet to be fulfilled. What makes you think dear friend that because a prophecy may not have been fulfilled or no records may be available one way or another that a biblical prophecy will not be fulfilled if it is applicable to the end times or to other times because there is no records to prove its fulfillment one way or the other and why do you think a bible prophecy not being fulfilled in your timing means it will not be fulfilled at another time not of your choosing?
 
Last edited:

Skwim

Veteran Member
Dear friend, there are many bible prophecies that have been fulfilled in the bible very specific in detail and have been recorded in the historical records for all to see. There are many unfulfilled prophecies that are specific to the end times that are yet to be fulfilled. What makes you think dear friend that because a prophecy may not have been fulfilled or no records may be available one way or another that a biblical prophecy will not be fulfilled if it is applicable to the end times or to other times because there is no records to prove its fulfillment one way or the other and why do you think a bible prophecy not being fulfilled in your timing means it will not be fulfilled at another time not of your choosing?
The opportunity came and went. Ashur lost rule over the Nile some 2600 years ago and Assyria no longer exists, making the whole operation moot. The Nile never dried up and there's no reason for god to retaliate against a nonexistent entity by drying it up now.

.
 
Last edited:

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
The opportunity came and went. Ashur lost rule over the Nile some 2600 years ago and Assyria no longer exists, making the whole operation moot. The Nile never dried up and there's no reason for god to retaliate against nonexistent entities by drying it up now.

.
Nonsense. The prophecy is independent of it's Kings. There are many examples of this all through the bible. I believe your post is simply an example of athiests making claims that do not understand scripture. Where does it say in ISAIAH that Ashur was to be a part of this prophecy and it was to occur in his lifetime? - Nowhere.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Nonsense. The prophecy is independent of it's Kings. There are many examples of this all through the bible. I believe your post is simply an example of athiests making claims that do not understand scripture. Where does it say in ISAIAH that Ashur was to be a part of this prophecy and it was to occur in his lifetime? - Nowhere.
As far as I know Isaiah doesn't say a thing about it. But Zechariah sure does. Remember this And Ashur isn't a "his" or a "him," but a what: Assyria

Zechariah 10:11
“Trouble will pass over the sea and stir up waves in the sea; all the depths of the Nile will be dried up, the pride of Ashur will be brought down, and the scepter of Egypt will leave.


.
 

3rdAngel

Well-Known Member
As far as I know Isaiah doesn't say a thing about it. But Zechariah sure does. Remember this And Ashur isn't a "his" or a "him," but a what: Assyria

Zechariah 10:11
“Trouble will pass over the sea and stir up waves in the sea; all the depths of the Nile will be dried up, the pride of Ashur will be brought down, and the scepter of Egypt will leave.


.

Soo what does the PRIDE of ASHUR represent? Does it represent ASHUR or EGYPT who was ASHURS pride? I believe your post here is a good example of unbelievers not understanding the scriptures
 

Eyes to See

Well-Known Member
How about those things that don't go as the Bible tells?

Matthew 24:30-31, 34
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
.
.

34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.​

Still waiting. And

Zechariah 10:11
“Trouble will pass over the sea and stir up waves in the sea; all the depths of the Nile will be dried up, the pride of Ashur will be brought down, and the scepter of Egypt will leave.​

It never happened.



Interesting. What is your book, chapter, and verse?



Well Buddhism, which does not profess a god and predates Jesus, says,

“Do not return evil to your adversary; Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, Maintain justice for your enemy, Be friendly to your enemy.”
Which isn't far from “love your enemy



Three among many, many examples.


2 Kings 8:26
26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

2 Chronicles 22:2
2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.



Genesis 10:24
Arphaxad was the father of Shelah. Shelah was the father of Eber.

Luke 3:35
Nahor was the son of Serug. Serug was the son of Reu. Reu was the son of Peleg. Peleg was the son of Eber. Eber was the son of Shelah.
36 Shelah was the son of Cainan. Cainan was the son of Arphaxad. Arphaxad was the son of Shem. Shem was the son of Noah. Noah was the son of Lamech.



2 Samuel 24:1

24 Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel....”

1 Chronicles 21:1
21 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.


.

.

So I'm pretty new to this forum and don't know you yet. You probably don't know me, I've only made a few posts. But reading through this thread I stopped at this post and decided to answer it.

I got a new IPad, and have been playing around with it. And decided to try and do a recording and it seems to have worked. So I did a recording to answer your points as best I could and uploaded it to YouTube. It was kind of fun. I think I might do more replies like this in the future.

Here it is:

 

Skwim

Veteran Member
So I'm pretty new to this forum and don't know you yet. You probably don't know me, I've only made a few posts. But reading through this thread I stopped at this post and decided to answer it.

I got a new IPad, and have been playing around with it. And decided to try and do a recording and it seems to have worked. So I did a recording to answer your points as best I could and uploaded it to YouTube. It was kind of fun. I think I might do more replies like this in the future.

Here it is:

Interesting presentation, but far too difficult to follow and work with. Perhaps others will be more comfortable with it, but I doubt if I'll respond to another. :shrug:

That said, a few comments.

At the 6:22 mark I wasn't able to make out the word you say just before "Christian" in "this generation refers to -----"Christian," which I assume is an important qualifier.

While I see no reason to regard this as anything but a failed prophecy, I will reserve judgement until I find out what you said around the 6:22 mark

________________

At the 8:37 mark I haven't a clue what scripture you're presenting that starts with _____:29. Is it some kind of apologetic commentary?

In any case, Zechariah 10:11 makes no bones about drying up the Nile. When it says "all the depths of the Nile will be dried up . . . " "will be" express an inevitability. "Could" or any such sense of the word is never stated or implied, and your apologetic sources should be ashamed for even suggesting it. But then this is very typical of Bible apologetics.

In as much as this was a prophesy of inevitability that never took place or ever can, I'm calling it an Utterly Failed Prophecy

_________________

Of the 51 Bibles I checked, in 2 Chronicles 22:2 47% say 43 years old and 53 % say 22 years old
So, not only is there a contradiction between 2 Chronicles and 2 kings, but depending on the translation there's a contradiction within 2 Chronicles itself .

With almost half of 2 Chronicles standing in disagreement I regard this as a true Contradiction.
_________________

In Luke, of the 51 Bibles I checked, every one of them lists Shelah as the son of Cainan. And in Genesis, everyone of them listed Arphaxad as the father of Shelah

The apologetics you present simply fall on their face and don't mean squat when one looks at what is actually said in the Bibles. If they had any merit at all the correction would show up in at least some of the Bibles, but it doesn't.

With every one of the Bibles in complete disagreement I regard this as an absolute contradiction
________________

For 2 Samuel all 51 Bibles say "lord" or an equivalent
For 1 Chronicles all 51 Bibles say "Satan" or an equivalent

With every one of the Bibles in complete disagreement I regard this as an absolute contradiction


And again, the apologetics you cite don't mean a thing. It's what is written in the Bible that matters, not what tap dancing Christian apologists say in trying to squeeze out a defense of the Bible.



.
 
Last edited:

Eyes to See

Well-Known Member
Interesting presentation, but far too difficult to follow and work with. Perhaps others will be more comfortable with it, but I doubt if I'll ever respond to another. :shrug:

That said, a few comments.

At the 6:22 mark I wasn't able to make out the word you say just before "Christian" in "this generation refers to -----"Christian," which I assume is an important qualifier.

While I see no reason to regard this as anything but a failed prophecy, I will reserve judgement until I find out what you said around the 6:22 mark

________________

At the 8:37 mark I haven't a clue what scripture you're presenting that starts with _____:29. Is it some kind of apologetic commentary?

In any case, Zechariah 10:11 makes no bones about drying up the Nile. When it says "all the depths of the Nile will be dried up . . . " "will be" express an inevitability. "Could" or any such sense of the word is never stated or implied, and your apologetic sources should be ashamed for even suggesting it. But then this is very typical of Bible apologetics.

In as much as this was a prophesy of inevitability that never took place or ever can, I'm calling it an Utterly Failed Prophecy

_________________

Of the 51 Bibles I checked, in 2 Chronicles 22:2 47% say 43 years old and 53 % say 22 years old
So, not only is there a contradiction between 2 Chronicles and 2 kings, but depending on the translation there's a contradiction within 2 Chronicles itself .

With almost half of 2 Chronicles standing in disagreement I regard this as a true Contradiction.
_________________

In Luke, of the 51 Bibles I checked, every one of them lists Shelah as the son of Cainan. And in Genesis, everyone of them listed Arphaxad as the father of Shelah

The apologetics you present simply fall on their face and don't mean squat when one looks at what is actually said in the Bibles. If they had any merit at all the correction would show up in at least some of the Bibles, but it doesn't.

With every one of the Bibles in complete disagreement I regard this as an absolute contradiction
________________

For 2 Samuel all 51 Bibles say "lord" or an equivalent
For 1 Chronicles all 51 Bibles say "Satan" or an equivalent

With every one of the Bibles in complete disagreement I regard this as an absolute contradiction


And again, the apologetics you cite don't mean a thing. It's what is written in the Bible that matters, not what tap dancing Christian apologists say in trying to squeeze out a defense of the Bible.

.

That's fine. Like you said, maybe others may accept some of the information. The word was "anointed Christians."

I am sure there is a reason certain ones render 42 and other 22, what it is I don't know.

As for Cainan being an interpolation, it is possible. There is another possibility:

"The term “Cainan” at Luke 3:36 may well be a corruption of the term “Chaldeans.” If this is so, the original text may have read, “the son of Chaldean Arpachshad.” Or it may be that the names Cainan and Arpachshad refer to one and the same person. Not to be overlooked is the fact that the expression “son of Cainan” is not found in some manuscripts."

Perhaps you had trouble with it because it was so long? It was a lot of things you provided though.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
How about those things that don't go as the Bible tells?

Matthew 24:30-31, 34
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

I think all the signs (Matt. 24:9-24) have already happened as Jesus told. Final day should not have happened yet, because Jesus said in the end of that speech:

But no one knows of that day and hour, not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
Matt. 24:36

Zechariah 10:11

“Trouble will pass over the sea and stir up waves in the sea; all the depths of the Nile will be dried up, the pride of Ashur will be brought down, and the scepter of Egypt will leave.

It never happened.

Why do you think it should already have happened and how can we know it has not already happened?

Interesting. What is your book, chapter, and verse?

God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear," and it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:9-10

Well Buddhism, which does not profess a god and predates Jesus, says,

“Do not return evil to your adversary; Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, Maintain justice for your enemy, Be friendly to your enemy.”

Which isn't far from “love your enemy”

I believe that is copied from Jesus.

2 Kings 8:26
26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

2 Chronicles 22:2
2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

That is interesting. Literal translation (for example Young’s literal) says in 2 Chronicles 22:2 twenty two.

A son of twenty and two years is Ahaziah in his reigning, and one year he hath reigned in Jerusalem, and the name of his mother is Athaliah daughter of Omri;
2 Chronicles 22:2 (Young’s literal)

So, I don’t think that means Bible has contradiction. Some translations of the non-contradictory Bible may have minor mistranslations.

Genesis 10:24

Arphaxad was the father of Shelah. Shelah was the father of Eber.

Luke 3:35
Nahor was the son of Serug. Serug was the son of Reu. Reu was the son of Peleg. Peleg was the son of Eber. Eber was the son of Shelah.
36 Shelah was the son of Cainan. Cainan was the son of Arphaxad. Arphaxad was the son of Shem. Shem was the son of Noah. Noah was the son of Lamech.

That is also not exactly contradiction, because the Bible doesn’t say Cainan was not father of Shelah. In Bible grandfathers are also fathers and it could be said that Adam is the father of all of us.

I think here is good point about this:

It should be noted that the two genealogies are virtually identical. Noah, Shem, and Arpachshad or Arphaxad appear in sequential order in both passages. Cainan does not appear in Genesis 10, but he is listed in Luke 3:35-36. This should not be a concern since Reu does not appear in Genesis 10 but is listed in Luke 3. It was common for names to be skipped in the Jewish genealogies For example, while Reu does not appear after Peleg in Genesis 10 he is listed in the genealogy in Genesis 10 (Gen. 11:18). If everyone had been included over the years of humanity, the list would be extremely long. So the author selected the names that he would include. Was there something significant about Cainan? We do not know. This is the only place in scripture he is listed.
Why was Cainan not included in the genealogy in Genesis 10:24? | NeverThirsty

2 Samuel 24:1
24 Again the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel, and He moved David against them to say, “Go, number Israel....”

1 Chronicles 21:1
21 And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

How is this contradiction? That could mean that the anger of the Lord is same as Satan.

It is also in this case interesting to look what the Young’s literal version says:

And the anger of Jehovah addeth to burn against Israel, and an adversary moveth David about them, saying, `Go, number Israel and Judah.'
2 Samuel 24:1 (Young’s literal)

Thank you for your effort and sorry, I think those are not really contradictions, because it depends too much on who you interpret the scriptures.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Why do you think it should already have happened and how can we know it has not already happened?
See posts 8 and 10

God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear," and it was so. God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:9-10
Nothing at all about a single continent. That dry land appeared certainly doesn't rule out islands, even many, many islands. In fact. the dry land could have been composed of six enormous islands and thousands of much smaller islands, OR seven continents and no islands at all. Thing is, "dry land" doesn't describe the expanse of the land at all.

I believe that is copied from Jesus.
According to the experts it wasn't. It comes from

The Advice of an Akkadian Father to His Son, c. 2200 BCE
source

And please note the date

That is interesting. Literal translation (for example Young’s literal) says in 2 Chronicles 22:2 twenty two.
So what? In the

21st Century King James Version it says 42
American Standard Version it says 42
Amplified Bible, Classic Edition it says 42
Blue Red and Gold Letter Edition Bible it says 42
Complete Jewish Bible it says 42
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition it says 42
Geneva Bible it says 42
GOD’S WORD Translation it says 42
King James Version it says 42
Lexham English Bible it says 42
Modern English Version it says 42
Names of God Bible it says 42
New Revised Standard Version it says 42
etc.
etc​


That is also not exactly contradiction, because the Bible doesn’t say Cainan was not father of Shelah.
Sure it does. There 's no indication in the genealogy that any of the people listed were something other than a direct son or father.

Genesis 10: 22-24
22 The sons of Shem were
Elam, Ashur, Arphaxad, Lud, and Aram.
23 The sons of Aram were
Uz, Hul, Gether, and Meshek.
24 Arphaxad was the father of Shelah,
and Shelah was the father of Eber.

Nary an indication of "grandson" at all.

It should be noted that the two genealogies are virtually identical. Noah, Shem, and Arpachshad or Arphaxad appear in sequential order in both passages. Cainan does not appear in Genesis 10, but he is listed in Luke 3:35-36. This should not be a concern since Reu does not appear in Genesis 10 but is listed in Luke 3. It was common for names to be skipped in the Jewish genealogies For example, while Reu does not appear after Peleg in Genesis 10 he is listed in the genealogy in Genesis 10 (Gen. 11:18). If everyone had been included over the years of humanity, the list would be extremely long. So the author selected the names that he would include. Was there something significant about Cainan? We do not know. This is the only place in scripture he is listed.
Silly as this is, so what? Of course there's a mistake here or in Luke, or maybe even both. But the reason for the mistake doesn't matter because it still amounts to a contradiction, WHICH IS THE ISSUE HERE. The genealogies of Genesis 10:24 and Luke 3:35 contradict each other regardless of the why, including any concocted why.

How is this contradiction? That could mean that the anger of the Lord is same as Satan.
And maybe Jesus never died on the cross. And maybe he never left the tomb on his own. And maybe he never appeared to anyone after he disappeared. One could go on all day questioning troublesome spots in the Bible with "coulds" and "maybes," but in the end they still have to stand up to what is actually stated in the Bible.


.
 
Last edited:

1213

Well-Known Member
See posts 8 and 10….

If there is no mention in the Egyptian writings, it does not prove it didn’t happen. And I don’t think it is clear what the Ashshur means in the scripture. That is why I think it is not possible to say Bible is wrong about the matter.

Nothing at all about a single continent. That dry land appeared certainly doesn't rule out islands, even many, many islands. In fact. the dry land could have been composed of six enormous islands and thousands of much smaller islands, OR seven continents and no islands at all. Thing is, "dry land" doesn't describe the expanse of the land at all. ….

The scripture tells that the water was in one place, which clearly means one ocean and one continent (area of dry land)

God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas.
Genesis 1:10

There was single area of dry land, according to that.

According to the experts it wasn't. It comes from

The Advice of an Akkadian Father to His Son, c. 2200 BCE
source

And please note the date….

I could add to my text 2200 BCE, does it make this writing that old?

I didn’t find the original source of the text. Do you know where is that?

So what? In the

21st Century King James Version it says 42….

If the new translation has 42, it doesn’t prove the original Bible is contradictory or wrong. if I would make wrong translation of what you say, would it mean you are wrong or contradictory?

…Silly as this is, so what? Of course there's a mistake here or in Luke, or maybe even both. But the reason for the mistake doesn't matter because it still amounts to a contradiction, WHICH IS THE ISSUE HERE. The genealogies of Genesis 10:24 and Luke 3:35 contradict each other regardless of the why, including any concocted why….

Interesting topic this. Now that I have read more of this, it appears that in the oldest manuscripts there is no extra Cainan. So, maybe people should make new correct translation according to the oldest manuscripts.

“So if a copyist of Luke’s Gospel is responsible for the error, how come it is in the LXX as well? A clue to the solution is that the extra Cainan in Genesis 11 is found only in manuscripts of the LXX that were written long after Luke’s Gospel. The oldest LXX manuscripts do not have this extra Cainan.”
Cainan: can you explain the difference between Luke 3:36 and Genesis 11:12? - creation.com
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
If there is no mention in the Egyptian writings, it does not prove it didn’t happen. And I don’t think it is clear what the Ashshur means in the scripture. That is why I think it is not possible to say Bible is wrong about the matter.
Do you mean "Ashur" as I quoted the scripture? Ashur is another word for Assyria.

The scripture tells that the water was in one place, which clearly means one ocean and one continent (area of dry land)
As I told you, this isn't necessarily the condition at all. The verse simply says "And God called the dry land, Earth;"


God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas.
Genesis 1:10

There was single area of dry land, according to that.
If the water was "in one place" then why would he use the plural "Seas" to describe it. Nope I can readily see the "Seas" containing many bodies of water, all separated by various islands, large land masses, or continents. And this single continent you speak of, you are aware, are you not, that it, Pangaea, existed until some 300 million years ago?


I could add to my text 2200 BCE, does it make this writing that old?
Do you honestly believe that's how the writer identified it, as writing that happened "2,200 years before Jesus"?

I didn’t find the original source of the text. Do you know where is that?
I don't.

If the new translation has 42, it doesn’t prove the original Bible is contradictory or wrong.
Don't know what you consider the "new translation," but you're correct that it doesn't prove the "original Bible" is contradictory or wrong, nor does it prove it isn't contradictory or right. So we're left with many Bibles telling their readers that .Ahaziah was both 22 and 42 when he began to reign.

if I would make wrong translation of what you say, would it mean you are wrong or contradictory?
???

“So if a copyist of Luke’s Gospel is responsible for the error, how come it is in the LXX as well? A clue to the solution is that the extra Cainan in Genesis 11 is found only in manuscripts of the LXX that were written long after Luke’s Gospel. The oldest LXX manuscripts do not have this extra Cainan.”
As I said it doesn't matter why or who is responsible for the error, or where, the fact is, it exists. The Bible does contradicts itself, which is the only issue under consideration, as you asked.

.
 
Top