Is the Bible Trustworthy?

[Subduction Zone]

I have seen that in some people. Do they really not know that they are making it equal to their god?

I have used that argument myself. And then these people are shocked when their children get out in the real world and drop their false beliefs. Quite often these people go to the extreme. The fastest route to atheism is a literal interpretation of the Bible.

 

[savagewind]

I have used that argument myself. And then these people are shocked when their children get out in the real world and drop their false beliefs. Quite often these people go to the extreme. The fastest route to atheism is a literal interpretation of the Bible.

You are reminding me of the awful scene I had to witness on the Fred Roger's documentary. It seems that outside his funeral there were people with their children demonstrating against gay rights. Unbelievable!

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are reminding me of the awful scene I had to witness on the Fred Roger's documentary. It seems that outside his funeral there were people with their children demonstrating against gay rights. Unbelievable!

Westboro Baptist? They are infamous for that sort of idiocy. Loving Christians they are not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Westboro Baptist? They are infamous for that sort of idiocy. Loving Christians they are not.

I am reminded of High Holy Day services a few years ago when the Westboro Baptist Church chose to picket us. As my wife and I walked out of the service we saw them across the street and, between us and them, a cordon of local Christians supporting us and protesting their hate. We are unlikely to forget that experience.

 

[MikeF]

Who decides what is real? Is there some ... something other than human beings who set definitions, who standardize linguistic terms, who discern whether standards are met?

Hmmmm. Real is real. We have the word real so that we may differentiate between ideas and concepts that are merely imagined vs those that actually have existence in the world. The concept of real is the intellectual understanding that the physical cosmos existed long before life began on this planet, that life on this planet was here long before that which we call Homo Sapiens existed on this planet, and that what exists is independent of what any creature may happen to think about it. "Real" is the label for this. We humans label things. Labels are arbitrary and different languages use different labels for the very same things that we talk about in English. That is all that it is. How we know what is real vs imaginary I won't bother trying to go into.

If not, then, we humans determine reality. If we suddenly disappear, there IS no such thing called “reality,” because there is nothing left to see that standards and definitions are met. I challenge that “reality”!is a human construct that cannot exist without us.

The only human construct is the label. The thing that the label refers to, in this particular case, is all that is real and existent. The label "Invisible Pink Unicorn" is a human construct that, in this case, refers to a concept that is purely imaginary. This is how we use language. So labels are human constructs and real things exist whether we label them or not, whether we exist or not. Simple as that.

And, since we, as whole beings, include the subjective, it is part of what we are, and that aspect is not in need of “mitigation.” In fact, it must be taken under consideration in the determination of what is real.

The fact that we can believe things that are not true speaks quite clearly for the need to mitigate our fallibilities. Our needs, wants, and desires have nothing to do with determining what is real. All I can surmise from this conversation is that you are intellectually opposed to differentiating between real and imaginary. Is this the case?

 

[Skywalker]

The bible is a human work, by many authors at different times and places and with many purposes. It also reflects the knowledge of those times and places. Even if we assume each author was sincere, that would not prevent errors, of fact, history and science, nor the inclusion of myths, folktale and folk history.

Do you think the earth is flat, and immovably fixed at the center of creation, and that the sun moon and stars go round it? That the sky ('firmament') is a hard dome you can walk on, and to which the stars are affixed such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth? That's the cosmology of the bible, the cosmology of the times and places it was written, but in 2021 we know those views are simply wrong. Since you very reasonably like chapter and verse, >here< is a list of quotes I put together for another thread.

The Bible says the earth is round. Satan tempting Jesus doesn't mean that the earth is flat, because the highest mountain in Israel doesn't have a panorama of all the kingdoms of the world. Either it was metaphorical or a vision. The Bible agrees with the science. God created science. “I Need More Proof”

There is proof of God all around us... "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse."

 

[blü 2]

The Bible says the earth is round. Satan tempting Jesus doesn't mean that the earth is flat, because the highest mountain in Israel doesn't have a panorama of all the kingdoms of the world. Either it was metaphorical or a vision. The Bible agrees with the science. God created science. “I Need More Proof”

There you go again, wishing your nonsense onto the text.

Tell me, why would the bible NOT describe the cosmology of its day and age (as indeed it does)?

What other cosmology would it describe? That of the year 1000 CE? 1492? 1776? Stardate 2434?

Why would it do that?

 

[MikeF]

The proffered definition is, in my opinion quite superficial. Faith is not superficial.

Since I’ve made my use of the word clear, there should be no problem in understanding.

I wanted to quickly follow up on the last point above. You made your use of the word clear after I requested a specific definition from you. Until then, your use of the word did not fit with the context of what was being said if one assumed you were using the word as it is commonly used.

That is why you need a unique label for your definition. Your use of the label "faith" does not fit with what someone should reasonable expect you to mean without you having to give your unique definition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Bible says the earth is round. Satan tempting Jesus doesn't mean that the earth is flat, because the highest mountain in Israel doesn't have a panorama of all the kingdoms of the world. Either it was metaphorical or a vision. The Bible agrees with the science. God created science. “I Need More Proof”

The Bible say that the Earth is round like a circle. Circles are flat.

The Bible is wrong. And once again you use an equivocation fallacy.

 

[sojourner]

Hmmmm. Real is real. We have the word real so that we may differentiate between ideas and concepts that are merely imagined vs those that actually have existence in the world. The concept of real is the intellectual understanding that the physical cosmos existed long before life began on this planet, that life on this planet was here long before that which we call Homo Sapiens existed on this planet, and that what exists is independent of what any creature may happen to think about it. "Real" is the label for this. We humans label things. Labels are arbitrary and different languages use different labels for the very same things that we talk about in English. That is all that it is. How we know what is real vs imaginary I won't bother trying to go into.



The only human construct is the label. The thing that the label refers to, in this particular case, is all that is real and existent. The label "Invisible Pink Unicorn" is a human construct that, in this case, refers to a concept that is purely imaginary. This is how we use language. So labels are human constructs and real things exist whether we label them or not, whether we exist or not. Simple as that.



The fact that we can believe things that are not true speaks quite clearly for the need to mitigate our fallibilities. Our needs, wants, and desires have nothing to do with determining what is real. All I can surmise from this conversation is that you are intellectually opposed to differentiating between real and imaginary. Is this the case?

What I’m saying is that there is something substantive to intuition, creativity, imagination, emotion, aesthetic, and the way in which we make meaning. These aspects are intangible, unmeasurable, yet they are as real as anything else.

I think there’s a difference between “existence”’and “reality.” Existence is evidentiary. Reality is an ideal. I see what you’re saying, but I think there’s a greater depth to human experience that is “real” that you dismiss. Part of the problem is nomenclature. Terms get thrown around rather indiscriminately.

Here’s the deal: science can give us hard numbers about stars and constellations. That’s real. It’s existent because the numbers and facts are evidentiary. However, there are also poetry and music and art and myth about stars and constellations that are not quantifiable. Yet these ideals are real too. And unmitigated by science.

You seem to feel that science is the be all end all of what’s real. But I agree with PureX in this regard.

 

[MikeF]

What I’m saying is that there is something substantive to intuition, creativity, imagination, emotion, aesthetic, and the way in which we make meaning. These aspects are intangible, unmeasurable, yet they are as real as anything else.

I think there’s a difference between “existence”’and “reality.” Existence is evidentiary. Reality is an ideal. I see what you’re saying, but I think there’s a greater depth to human experience that is “real” that you dismiss. Part of the problem is nomenclature. Terms get thrown around rather indiscriminately.

Here’s the deal: science can give us hard numbers about stars and constellations. That’s real. It’s existent because the numbers and facts are evidentiary. However, there are also poetry and music and art and myth about stars and constellations that are not quantifiable. Yet these ideals are real too. And unmitigated by science.

You seem to feel that science is the be all end all of what’s real. But I agree with PureX in this regard.

Wow, now we are getting somewhere!

I am in full agreement that aesthetics, imagination, and creativity are wonderful and integral to the human experience. 100%. I have even taken up painting in the last two years. (On canvas, not my house ..... well, my house too, just not artistically ) These things have great value, but how they are valued is very subjective. Science does not play a role here, at least in terms of evaluating. Technology can certainly be used to achieve goals in the aesthetic realm. But I must say there is a distinct difference between whether something is real or not, and whether an individual finds value in an aesthetic idea or object.

Additionally, imagination and creativity are integral to science and technology. This is how we continue to push into and explore that which is still unknown. Science just cannot characterize what is imagined as real until it can sufficiently verify it to be so.

Above you say that reality is an ideal. I get that you feel the need to add the reality label to the aesthetic to give it a sense of equal weight and importance, but I think it is important to maintain it as separate things. Ideals are Ideals. Reality is the world as it is. And that is ok. We can assess reality as it is, and strive to make it better. We can imagine an ideal and use it as a goalpost, we imagine real problems resolved and the means to resolve them. But we do not have to label the ideal as reality to give it value.

Words have a purpose. We need to be able to distinguish between real and imaginary. We need words to describe ideals and aspirations, with an understanding that they do not represent things as they are, but as we wish them to be.

I do feel science is the end all be all of what is real, and has no bearing on the aesthetic or its value. We can celebrate both.

 

[Skywalker]

The Bible say that the Earth is round like a circle. Circles are flat.

The Bible is wrong. And once again you use an equivocation fallacy.

Circles are not necessarily flat. Flat Earth Heresy

Isaiah 40:22, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as
grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.”



I cannot believe I am even writing this article, but as hard as it is to imagine, there are still people today who literally believe that the earth is flat. Folks, the earth is NOT flat! It is a circle, not a perfect circle, but it looks like a circle from outer space. The earth is actually a bit oblong...

Since the Earth is flattened at the poles and bulges at the equator, geodesy represents the shape of the Earth with an oblate spheroid. The oblate spheroid, or oblate ellipsoid, is an ellipsoid of revolution obtained by rotating an ellipse about its shorter axis.

SOURCE: Figure of the Earth - Wikipedia

American Scientific also provides information about the earth's shape...

Strange but True: Earth Is Not Round

Here is a satellite photo of the earth from NASA. Truly, a picture is worth 1,000 words...

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/nasa-captures-epic-earth-image

THE EARTH IS A SPHERE, just like the moon!!!

I've heard some well-meaning but ignorant preachers twist Revelation 1:7 where it says “every eye shall see him,” which, they say, means the earth must be flat for the whole world to see Christ when He returns. Folks, let's read the whole verse from Revelation 1:7, “Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.” How can all the people involved in “piercing” Jesus, that is, crucifying Him, see Him from Hell? Those were all unsaved people who pierced Jesus to the cross. Clearly, it is possible in ways that only God can understand. It is gross theological incompetence to attempt to use Revelation 1:7 to teach that the earth is flat, or dome shaped.

Kindly, for this very reason I had to stop supporting and promoting “The Common Man's Bible,” which can literally now be called “The Idiot's Bible,” because Brother Hoffman teaches in it that the earth is flat, which is insanity...

David Hoffman Teaches A Flat Earth In His Common Man's Reference Bible

Perhaps you say, “Does it really hurt if a sincere preacher thinks the earth is flat?” Are you kidding me? The answer is a resounding, yes, yes, yes, it is very detrimental and harmful to the cause of Christ. There are a lot of unsaved people, who upon learning that a man ignorantly teaches the earth is flat, will immediately leave (and I don't blame them) from the presence of that fool.

Even the Holy Bible tells us to go from the presence of a fool. Proverbs 14:7, “Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.” I cannot think of anything more foolish, and lacking of KNOWLEDGE, than a man who denies that the earth is a sphere. Pastor David Hoffman likes to quote from the Proverbs in an attempt to bolster up his strawman argument that the earth is really flat. Mr. Hoffman even goes as far as to call people who believe the truth about the earth being a circle, “globetards.” No, Brother Hoffman is the retard!

There are hundreds of photos on the internet showing that the earth is a sphere.

 

[McBell]

Circles are not necessarily flat. Flat Earth Heresy

• A Circle is a two-dimensional figure whereas, a Sphere is a three-dimensional object.

Source

• Real life examples of a circle cannot be find as a circle exists as a two-dimensional concept – it only got length and height and no width. However, certain objects can resemble a circle – cookies, pizza, tires … Sphere-like object examples are softball, marbles, atoms, apples and so on.

Source

A circle is a two-dimensional figure, while a sphere is a three-dimensional figure.
​

Source

Circle is 2D while sphere is 3D
​

Source​

I can go on and on....
Please note that none of my sources are Christian Apologetics....

 

[Skywalker]

There you go again, wishing your nonsense onto the text.

Tell me, why would the bible NOT describe the cosmology of its day and age (as indeed it does)?

What other cosmology would it describe? That of the year 1000 CE? 1492? 1776? Stardate 2434?

Why would it do that?

The Bible agrees with the science of cosmology. That supports it being a scientifically accurate book. For example, it supports the round earth, which is scientific.

 

[Skywalker]

• A Circle is a two-dimensional figure whereas, a Sphere is a three-dimensional object.

Source

• Real life examples of a circle cannot be find as a circle exists as a two-dimensional concept – it only got length and height and no width. However, certain objects can resemble a circle – cookies, pizza, tires … Sphere-like object examples are softball, marbles, atoms, apples and so on.

Source

A circle is a two-dimensional figure, while a sphere is a three-dimensional figure.
​

Source

Circle is 2D while sphere is 3D
​

Source​

Please note that none of my sources are Christian Apologetics....

The expression circle of the earth proclaims that the earth is a circle. Flat Earth Heresy

Pastor Texe Marrs (1944-2019) is a brilliant man in my opinion, but it is obvious to me that the folks at Power of Prophecy are money-hungry as well. There is no way that anyone as intelligent as Texe could embrace the insanity of a FLAT EARTH! I can only logically conclude that the folks at 'Power of Prophecy' only want the money.

It is also possible that even though Texe may not believe in a FLAT EARTH, he gives others with whom he disagrees a chance to promote what they believe to be true, and then allows YOU, THE AUDIENCE, to form your own conclusions. Albeit, that is as wicked as Hell, intentionally promoting obvious heresy to sell a book to make a buck! I have never heard Texe or Jerry say that they disagree with a FLAT EARTH claim.

Regardless, I must expose Texe Marrs and Jerry Barrett as heretics in this matter, for promoting a FLAT EARTH heresy! Kindly, you are a darn fool dear reader if you believe that our earth is flat instead of a sphere. What saith the Scripture? Isaiah 40:22, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.” Even the Holy Bible proclaims that the earth is a CIRCLE!!!

In a recent episode of Power of Prophecy from November of 2019, Jerry Barrett interviewed author Edward Hendrie. Here is the introductory information provided at Power of Prophecy about this particular episode...

Sphere of Influence—Does God’s Word Confirm the Earth is Flat?

November 1, 2019
Jerry Barrett is pleased to welcome Edward Hendrie, author of the new book The Sphere of Influence, to the program. What began as an innocuous email discussion with his father has led Mr. Hendrie into authoring two extensive tomes exposing the heretical views of heliocentrism versus the bible-based model of geocentrism. Through mathematical calculations and geometric equations, the author disproves the curvature of the earth. Thanks to the sharing capability of the Internet and the ability of the populace to purchase never before available instruments, more information is becoming available to confirm this premise. Moreover, Mr. Hendrie uses scripture to prove the validity of his claim that the earth is flat.

LISTEN TO 'POWER OF PROPHECY' EPISODE #4419: SPHERE OF INFLUENCE (MP3)

If you want to hear the craziest thing you've ever heard, listen to Jerry Barrett at 30 minutes into the MP3 presentation, where he connects the Gospel to a FLAT EARTH! You couldn't make this stuff up! (actually they did...lol). What blatant heresy!!!

According to Ed Hendrie, if you reject a FLAT EARTH you are rejecting the Gospel! Edward Hendrie is a FALSE PROPHET, a nut in my humble opinion, who calls the teaching of a spherical earth: “THE GREATEST LIE IN HISTORY!” In the preceding Power of Prophecy episode (#4419), Hendrie says that a round earth teaching is used by Satan to blind people from the existence of God. Oh boy! The depth of their woeful ignorance is disturbing. Really, it is creepy that anyone could be so naive as to actually believe that the earth is FLAT in these modern times! There are people who still believe that men never walked on the moon. THEY DID! It is shocking that Hendrie claims preachers who deny his FLAT EARTH heresy are corrupting the Gospel, claiming that they don't accept the whole of God's Word. Honestly, it is frightening that anybody could actually buy into these Satanic lies! Dear reader, the earth is a sphere!


False Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing!

I couldn't believe that someone actually made the following idiotic video, in which a man contends that the earth's sun couldn't possibly be 93,000,000 miles away. Uh, yeah, it is! Honestly folks, I feel sorry for some people, seeing how dumb they are (this guy reminds me of Dr. John MacArthur and his retarded denial of Jesus' blood on the Mercy Seat in Heaven in plain defiance of Hebrews 9:12)...

FLAT EARTH - THE SUN IS 93,000,000 MILES AWAY?!? NO WAY

The fact that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west each day, evidences that the earth is a sphere that is spinning. Science proves that the sun is 93,000,000 miles away from the earth. It takes sunlight 8 minutes to reach the earth. If the sun exploded, we wouldn't know it for 8 minutes. The earth rotates around the sun once every 365.25 days. Having said that, now consider the preceding video, by an ignorant man who argues that the sun couldn't possible be 93,000,000 miles away, because our sun looks like a spotlight in the sky. His reasoning is that if the sun were really 93,000,000 miles away, its rays would not be so intense in the earth's sky, like a bright spotlight. The idiot in the preceding video fails to understand that it's the earth's atmosphere that refracts the sun's light, which gives the sky it's blue color, and wonderful seven rainbow colors. That is why when we gaze up at stars at night, we only sees bright dots in the heavens. Those stars are too far away. God knew what He has doing when He made the universe. What a brilliant Creator!!!

 

[McBell]

The expression circle of the earth proclaims that the earth is a circle. Flat Earth Heresy

Merely repeating your Christian Apologetics does not work.
As anyone can clearly see from my posted sources, the ONLY ones claiming a circle is a sphere are Christian Apologetics.

 

[Skywalker]

The Bible say that the Earth is round like a circle. Circles are flat.

The Bible is wrong. And once again you use an equivocation fallacy.

The circle of the earth sounds like a globe, which is round.

 

[Skywalker]

• A Circle is a two-dimensional figure whereas, a Sphere is a three-dimensional object.

Source

• Real life examples of a circle cannot be find as a circle exists as a two-dimensional concept – it only got length and height and no width. However, certain objects can resemble a circle – cookies, pizza, tires … Sphere-like object examples are softball, marbles, atoms, apples and so on.

Source

A circle is a two-dimensional figure, while a sphere is a three-dimensional figure.
​

Source

Circle is 2D while sphere is 3D
​

Source​

I can go on and on....
Please note that none of my sources are Christian Apologetics....

A globe is a circular shape.

 

[McBell]

A globe is a circular shape.

your desperation is showing.....

 

[oldbadger]

You may not be a Christian but you come from a Christian background.

Duh! No, I don't.
You would be much better off in debates if you would read posts carefully and stop pretending that you know who and what everybody is.

you seemed to defend Christianity which cultural Christians do always.

Oh please! Maybe English just cannot be your first language, or maybe you part-read posts and clutch at the odd phrase?

Back you go to Post 51, please, and read the part where I wrote:-

In my opinion, contradictions don't 'bin' the bible. A lot of the bible entries are most valuable, others are junk, I think.

or......

So for those who believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God, sadly I cannot agree. For others who think it can be most valuable in many ways, yes.... I think so too,

You claim to be with Islam, but if you think that the bible is all total rubbish then I don't see how you can be because Muhammad quoted the bible 'All the time!'.
So where does that leave you, eh?