Is the Bible Trustworthy?

[Subduction Zone]

Circles are not necessarily flat. Flat Earth Heresy

Actually they are, by definition.

EDIT: oh my Gawd!! I checked out the link. It was by someone that seriously couldn't have passed a middle school math class.

Circles are not spheres. Spheres are not circles. Two dimensional and three.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A globe is a circular shape.

No, a circle is flat. TWO DIMENSIONAL.

The Bible even uses language that only applies to a two dimensional circle. And in the original Hebrew it is even clearer.

 

[thomas t]

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?

no,
you can observe the earth is not.
Flat earth, for example, is mentioned in prophecy, but I do not interpret prophecy in a literal sense. For me, Jesus is not a literal door, either.

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.

That sky was a feature in the earth before, according to the Bible. But addording to 2 Peter 3:5-6, this is not the earth that it used to be before the flood. The old one was destroyed, as this verse says. So, I assume, the firmament was destroyed, also.

So I keep to my point of view that the Bible is flawless.

 

[thomas t]

Can the Bible be trustworthy for what? To lead? To believe in? To teach? To enjoy? What?

... to base your life on what Bible says.

To dissect something means that it is dead. Stop dissecting the Bible and it will live for you.

was this at me?

 

[ajay0]

The Prajapita Brahmakumaris believe that truth is mixed with error in most religious scriptures of the past due to interpolations and misinterpretations.

So while it is good to be knowledgeable about scriptures, it should be judged prudently and not taken literally.

Intuition arising in present moment awareness can be taken as a guide as well.

 

[blü 2]

no,
you can observe the erath is not.
Flat earth, for example, is mentioned in prophecy, but I do not interpret prophecy ina literal sense. For me, Jesus is not a literal door, either.

I fear you're retrofitting, not reading the text as it stands.

The cosmology I mentioned is not only the cosmology of the bible but the cosmology of the times and places where the authors of the bible lived. What else would you expect them to write?

And why would you expect them to be aware of cosmology as it's understood in 2021? Why not as it's understood in 1000 CE? or 1666? Or stardate 2740?

I really don't understand this point, so I'm interested in your clarification.

That sky was a feature in the earth before, according to the Bible. But addording to 2 Peter 3:5-6, this is not the earth that it used to be before the flood. The old one was destroyed, as this verse says. So, I assume, the firmament was destroyed, also

But H sap sap is only 200,000 years old, maybe less, and modern H sap sap maybe 70,000 years back. We know they were on this planet so in the extremely unlikely event there was a previous planet, it ceased to exist 4.5 bn years ago. And we know there was never a Genesis flood on this planet while H sap sap's been around, because the signs of such a thing would be everywhere ─ a single universal geological flood layer, all over all continents and islands and the sea floor, for a start; and a genetic bottleneck in the genes of all land animals all the bottlenecks dating to the same date as the non-existent flood layer. And there'd need to be an explanation where the extra one billion cubic miles or more of water necessary to raise the water level to cover the highest mountains came from and went to ─ no problem with a flat earth, that last one, but a real problem with our spherical earth.

So the author of 2 Peter, whoever he was, is in serious error.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Mark -
1. Jesus eats the Passover meal (Thursday night) and is crucified the following morning.
2. Jesus is nailed to the cross at nine in the morning

John -
1. Jesus does not eat the Passover meal but is crucified on the day before the Passover meal was to be eaten.
Moreover,
2. John, he is not condemned until noon, and then he is taken out and crucified.

How will you reconcile that by reading the immediate context like you said?

I said 99% and this is no exception, because I said immediate context and historical context.

Jesus grew up in Galilee, the Galileans and Essenes disliked the (non-Levitical) Passover on the 14th Nisan and held there Passover on the 13th. Women normally carried water jugs except for Essene men who lived in community and carried them--Jesus sent His men to find a man carrying a water jug to attend an Essene 13th Passover as the Last Supper.

Jesus was crucified at 9 AM, the time of the Temple morning sacrifice, and died at 3 PM, time of the Temple evening sacrifice and the time the 14th lambs were slain!

Where do you find that John says "He was not condemned until Noon"?

 

[thomas t]

The cosmology I mentioned is not only the cosmology of the bible but the cosmology of the times and places where the authors of the bible lived. What else would you expect them to write?

I still stay with my opinion that the Bible including 2 Peter is 100% truth.

And why would you expect them to be aware of cosmology as it's understood in 2021? Why not as it's understood in 1000 CE? or 1666? Or stardate 2740?

The people who wrote the Bible were not knowledgeable of what astronomy was (is)... however God is. So God, in my opinion, needed to find a way in which his authors can make assertions about nature without violating the truth content of the Bible..

One such method would be: have them write about the cosmos in prophecy only.
In prophecy, metaphorical speaking comes with the territory,
And God could can ascribe a prophetical meaning to every single feature of what they were talking of back then.
For instance, the "four corners of the earth" in the Book of Revelation certainly have a prophetic meaning.
I just don't know which one it is.

But H sap sap is only 200,000 years old, maybe less, and modern H sap sap maybe 70,000 years back. We know they were on this planet so in the extremely unlikely event there was a previous planet, it ceased to exist 4.5 bn years ago.

God created the current earth providing an appearance of age, I think.

And we know there was never a Genesis flood on this planet while H sap sap's been around, because the signs of such a thing would be everywhere ─ a single universal geological flood layer, all over all continents and islands and the sea floor, for a start;

This is what one would expect when the earth basically stayed the same after the flood.
According to 2 Peter 3:6, this wasn't the case.

and a genetic bottleneck in the genes of all land animals all the bottlenecks dating to the same date as the non-existent flood layer.

The bottleneck.
Does not appear when God altered the DNA of people after the flood.
According to the Bible, God had every reason to change the human DNA when he introduced different languages in Genesis 11:7.
To my knowledge, speaking languages and genetics is interlinked.
when God finds one occasion to alter human DNA, he may find a second one.... and a third one.... etc.
So, a lacking bottleneck could refer to many things if we allow for God to intervene.

And there'd need to be an explanation where the extra one billion cubic miles or more of water necessary to raise the water level to cover the highest mountains came from and went to ─

only if the flood happened on this current earth. But 2 Peter...

Thomas

 

[Subduction Zone]

no,
you can observe the earth is not.
Flat earth, for example, is mentioned in prophecy, but I do not interpret prophecy in a literal sense. For me, Jesus is not a literal door, either.

That sky was a feature in the earth before, according to the Bible. But addording to 2 Peter 3:5-6, this is not the earth that it used to be before the flood. The old one was destroyed, as this verse says. So, I assume, the firmament was destroyed, also.

So I keep to my point of view that the Bible is flawless.

One more time, your interpretation of 2 Peter 3 5-6 is an exception, it is not the rule. You would need to justify it with more than an ad hoc "well it explains away the problem of no evidence for the flood".

Meanwhile you have been ignoring all of the other evidence that tells us that there was no flood.

Let's see if you duck this question again. I assume that you know that the story of someone waking up in a seedy motel room on the wrong side of town in a bathtub full of ice missing a kidney is a myth.

Why is it a myth? Why wouldn't someone just steal the kidney of some random person?

 

[firedragon]

Jesus grew up in Galilee, the Galileans and Essenes disliked the (non-Levitical) Passover on the 14th Nisan and held there Passover on the 13th. Women normally carried water jugs except for Essene men who lived in community and carried them--Jesus sent His men to find a man carrying a water jug to attend an Essene 13th Passover as the Last Supper.

Does that mean "they were not his disciples"? Or do you believe they were two disciples who still clung on to their traditions of the passover being on two different days? So, if Johns writer was a disciple, he obviously was going to have his passover the next day. And the writer of Mark has already had the passover.

And are you claiming that Caiaphas or/and the chief priests were Essenes? Remember? They were plotting Jesus's murder two days prior to the feast of flat bread. And they were those who celebrated passover. Thus, in your contention Mark is an Essene writing. Also you mean to say that Jesus celebrated the Essene passover, not the pharisaic passover. And every single disciple in Mark celebrated the Essene passover. So in your thesis, John was a pharisaic writing, while Mark was an Essene writing. This is what you are pointing at.

Are you saying that the Sadducees followed the Essene passover?

Thats a little hilarious to consider. But fine. If you wish.

Jesus was crucified at 9 AM, the time of the Temple morning sacrifice, and died at 3 PM, time of the Temple evening sacrifice and the time the 14th lambs were slain!

“Sixth hour
Matthew 27:45-46 “Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

John 19:14-16 “And it was the preparation of the passover; and about the sixth hour… Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priest answered. We have no king but Caesar….And they took Jesus and led him away.”

Third hour
Mark 15:25 “And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.”

Where do you find that John says "He was not condemned until Noon"?

Err. I think the same verse from John above confirms it mate. John 19:14.. It was at noon that they led him away. It is after that the crucifixion takes place. But in Mark, he was already crucified at 9 AM. You yourself said it.

Anything can be reconciled, but not objectively. You can cook up some story as far fetched as what you find lying around on the internet to reconcile this. But they are not historical, they are not textual, they are just pure conjecture and fantastic hard work.

Cheers.

 

[thomas t]

One more time, your interpretation of 2 Peter 3 5-6 is an exception, it is not the rule. You would need to justify it with more than an ad hoc "well it explains away the problem of no evidence for the flood".

Meanwhile you have been ignoring all of the other evidence that tells us that there was no flood.

Let's see if you duck this question again. I assume that you know that the story of someone waking up in a seedy motel room on the wrong side of town in a bathtub full of ice missing a kidney is a myth.

Why is it a myth? Why wouldn't someone just steal the kidney of some random person?

The two of us have different concepts of what a well substanciated response looks like, one that comes with sources (a quote in this case).

For you, this (I am citing the post in full length):

Oh my, so wrong. This was explained to you. Naughty, naughty.

...is a fully substanciated claim as you laid out here Is the Bible Trustworthy? ("do not call it unsubstanciated without a valid reason" you said there).

Since we disagree on the basics of what a qualified discussion looks like, I want to decline your offer to have a discussion with you. I hope you don’t mind. No offense, a wish you a pleasant continuation here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The two of us have different concepts of what a well substanciated response looks like, one that comes with sources (a quote in this case).

For you, this (I am citing the post in full length):

...is a fully substanciated claim as you laid out here Is the Bible Trustworthy? ("do not call it unsubstanciated without a valid reason" you said there).

Since we disagree on the basics of what a qualified discussion looks like, I want to decline your offer to have a discussion with you. I hope you don’t mind. No offense, a wish you a pleasant continuation here.

I can support my claims. That does not appear to be the case with you. When you tried to deny that there was evidence for the theory of evolution you demonstrated that you do not understand evolution, evidence,, or even the scientific method. I offered to go over that with you but, like many literalists you seem to think that a claim is "evidence". A claim is only as good as the evidence one is willing to use to support it. I am willing to support my claims when challenged. I do not see the same from you.

If you do not want a discussion that is fine. Of course I will still be here to correct your errors. And if you do make a valid point I will acknowledge it as well.

 

[Moses_UK]

No, because.....


1. WHY are the Bible authors unknown and written by anonymous writers who weren’t eyewitnesses to Jesus’s life?

2. WHY were they complied and canonized 100s of years after the death of Jesus?

3. WHY have lots of texts (doctrinal) been omitted and changed in the NIV in comparison to the KJV? (Scribes have been omitting, deleted, and added texts throughout history – and we have proof.

4. WHY are there thousands of Bibles with different texts existing?

5. WHY are all the original Greek manuscripts lost, and what we have today are copies of copies of copies of copies? (remember Jesus didn’t even speak Greek)

6. WHAT was the earliest Christians using (for guidance in doctrine) before the creation of the modern Bible?

7. WHY does the Bible have LOTS of contradictions and not preserved if from God?

8. WHY are there discrepancies of the crucifixion in the canonical gospels?

9. WHY are doctrines of Christianity later additions to Pauline’s religion by people like Augustine/Constantine etc.

10. WHY were the councils set up 300 + years after the death of Jesus to create a new doctrine (religion) which added lots of pagan beliefs and rituals?

11. WHY do Jesus’s teachings in the Bible contradict the modern-day Christian beliefs such as the trinity/keeping the laws etc?

12. WHY did Jesus practice the old Laws, and forced others to do so?

13. Why did Jesus differentiate between himself and God? (John 20:17)

14. WHY is the Trinity NOT explicit in the Bible?

15. WHY didn’t the Jews/old testament confirm the trinity?

16. WHY did the disciples NOT know, or worship the Trinity God Head?

 

[blü 2]

I still stay with my opinion that the Bible including 2 Peter is 100% truth.

It's written by humans with the various understandings, politics and purposes of 2500 years ago. Why would you think it was true in any other sense?

The people who wrote the Bible were not knowledgeable of what astronomy was (is)... however God is. So God, in my opinion, needed to find a way in which his authors can make assertions about nature without violating the truth content of the Bible.

Then you think the earth is flat and immovably fixed at the center of creation and the sky is a hard dome to which the stars are attached, and so on? Because, as you saw in those quotes I linked, that's exactly and only what it says.

God created the current earth providing an appearance of age, I think.

Why would God seek to hide the truth?

This is what one would expect when the earth basically stayed the same after the flood.
According to 2 Peter 3:6, this wasn't the case.

But 2 Peter 3:6 is simply wrong, for the reasons I outlined and a great many more such reasons. Why turn your back on reality? Isn't it the Christian view that God has two books, one written by imperfect humans, the bible, and one written by [his] own hand, the universe? In that case, isn't the evidence of reality some orders of magnitude more directly divine than the book?

The bottleneck.
Does not appear when God altered the DNA of people after the flood.

Once again, why would God falsify the evidence? Is [he] a God of falsifications?

According to the Bible, God had every reason to change the human DNA when he introduced different languages in Genesis 11:7.

My DNA is inherited from native speakers of Scots Gaelic, Welsh, Anglo-Saxon, and my children's DNA adds Irish Gaelic, German and Yiddish. Why do you need to change your DNA to speak another language? For example, creoles form naturally in front of our eyes, as it were, with no change of DNA at all. Or if you've traveled across the US and Canada, you'll have experienced a spectrum of local dialects, accents, word choices, and so on. This is true across Britain and Europe, with jokes by the easterner that that westerners are incomprehensible, and vice versa. Many speak the national language in public and the local version at home and with friends.

All of which goes to show that languages too evolve. And, under the influence first of radio, then of TV, now of the net, may move back towards a center.

 

[loverofhumanity]

So the Biblical authors knew everything. I can accept that. I once knew everything too. I was much younger then. Did the authors write anything when they got older?

I don’t think they knew everything, just inspired so far as the Gospels they wrote.

 

[rational experiences]

Arguing over a book compiled by humans.

Did a book create you should be a human logical asserted reasoning.

The answer is no.

No human thinking invented creation.
And no human thinking invented life.

Basic common sense exists first in any argument.

If a male falsely says space a word described as being emptied of something that once existed. Said by his own self.....human. space means empty.

Do....... if you thesis for a space point first to apply getting God stone power then you did. And that space moment not yet apparent.

Thesis first all about natural bodies of mass

Actually.

Design machine not yet active.

Set night time sky alight. Witnessed to count it burning for six days

Then says mass owns no space.

Only space is space by definition.

Then how did he get the power of God in science.

Basic actually.

Invented design as thinking.

Does thinking own mass?

No.

So there is the first science male inventor spiritual lie before he sacrificed his brain. His blood and cells and then invented an afterlife. Image voice encoded recording atmosphere memory that will live for evermore

Imaged recording memory stories of what he did as a human inferring God theism. Science converting.

Is not the word described as eternal.

Had always existed. Eternal meaning.

Image a cause.

Another lie.

Then the life of a living creator male science history owned as a loving self every abuse to female life body. Animals. Garden. Body of stone. As the creator inventor I changed God.

So I know God never loved me when science my spiritual male human life partner caused my harm. Says God inferring self loves me yet includes lots of mass conversions in that ideal.

What he personally caused. Creator inventor about God. How to.

Quoting self a God also falsely claimed God his thoughts loved me.

His choices not loving. Yet he lives as a loving male.

His own contradiction his story if he cared to tell his truth.

Which father has in my life.

As he said space began as. Female. Totally false word use. I got brain prickled burnt. Witnessed phenomena just because science a human choice. Male invented lied.

About word use. Implied coercively his own warning.

 

[thomas t]

No, because.....


1. WHY [...]
2. WHY [...]
3. WHY[...]
[...]

Mere questions cannot support a claim about the purported lack of trustfulness of someone.
A question.... is a question.

 

[thomas t]

It's written by humans with the various understandings, politics and purposes of 2500 years ago. Why would you think it was true in any other sense?

.... because God is behind it.
In my opinion, he inspired the writers to write the truth and only the truth.

Then you think the earth is flat and immovably fixed at the center of creation and the sky is a hard dome to which the stars are attached, and so on? Because, as you saw in those quotes I linked, that's exactly and only what it says.

... in prophecy most often, I suppose.
If you wanted to take Prophecy literally, then you would believe that your God is a literal door, made of wood perhaps.

But 2 Peter 3:6 is simply wrong, for the reasons I outlined and a great many more such reasons.

In my opinion, I refuted these reasons... and I continue to take 2 Peter as truth, if I may.

God created an appearance of age for the earth, I think.
Take for instance evolution.
The Theory of Evolution is well evidenced.
Scientists know how to produce the evidence needed to back up their theories.
But IF God changes something in genetics thousands of years ago, the scientists would not take it as a divine change.... but rather understand it as a change that happened over time. See below for language and genetics as an example.

Why would God seek to hide the truth?

+

Once again, why would God falsify the evidence? Is [he] a God of falsifications?

no. God neither intended to hide the truth... nor to falsify anything for the sake of falsification.
In my opinion, the appearance of age is a side effect.
God, as I see it, wanted features that let the earth have the appearance of age.
as an example, he loved humanity so much, that he wanted your ancestors to have charcoal for instance... so that they could make an industrial revolution out of it.
The corresponding appearance of age? a mere side effect, in my opinion.

Why turn your back on reality?

I don't.

Isn't it the Christian view that God has two books, one written by imperfect humans, the bible, and one written by [his] own hand, the universe?

that's the liberal Christian standpoint. Or it's the progressive Christian view. This is proposed by the big mainline churches, as I see it.
Nevertheless, I take the Bible as being literally true - except for prophetic speaking. Jesus isn't the literal door, for instance.

My DNA is inherited from native speakers of Scots Gaelic, Welsh, Anglo-Saxon, and my children's DNA adds Irish Gaelic, German and Yiddish. Why do you need to change your DNA to speak another language?

genetics and language are interlinked (citing from Language and genetics.):
Gene variants underlie individual language skills. Genetic predisposition might favour the evolution of structural features of languages.

Humans have a unique natural ability to develop highly complex linguistic systems — an ability that lies in our genes but is also shaped by our different environments.

God wanted to have the change in genetics the article is talking about. This, in my opinion, is indicated by Genesis 11:7.
Nevertheless, since the scientists did not witness God producing a change in DNA some 4500 years ago... they don't ascribe that change to God but to natural selection that happened over time.
I'm not saying scientists engage in bad science though...

 

[blü 2]

.... because God is behind it.
In my opinion, he inspired the writers to write the truth and only the truth.

... in prophecy most often, I suppose.
If you wanted to take Prophecy literally, then you would believe that your God is a literal door, made of wood perhaps.

In my opinion, I refuted these reasons... and I continue to take 2 Peter as truth, if I may.

God created an appearance of age for the earth, I think.
Take for instance evolution.
The Theory of Evolution is well evidenced.
Scientists know how to produce the evidence needed to back up their theories.
But IF God changes something in genetics thousands of years ago, the scientists would not take it as a divine change.... but rather understand it as a change that happened over time. See below for language and genetics as an example.

+
no. God neither intended to hide the truth... nor to falsify anything for the sake of falsification.
In my opinion, the appearance of age is a side effect.
God, as I see it, wanted features that let the earth have the appearance of age.
as an example, he loved humanity so much, that he wanted your ancestors to have charcoal for instance... so that they could make an industrial revolution out of it.
The corresponding appearance of age? a mere side effect, in my opinion.

I don't.
that's the liberal Christian standpoint. Or it's the progressive Christian view. This is proposed by the big mainline churches, as I see it.
Nevertheless, I take the Bible as being literally true - except for prophetic speaking. Jesus isn't the literal door, for instance.

genetics and language are interlinked (citing from Language and genetics.):
Gene variants underlie individual language skills. Genetic predisposition might favour the evolution of structural features of languages.

Humans have a unique natural ability to develop highly complex linguistic systems — an ability that lies in our genes but is also shaped by our different environments.

God wanted to have the change in genetics the article is talking about. This, in my opinion, is indicated by Genesis 11:7.
Nevertheless, since the scientists did not witness God producing a change in DNA some 4500 years ago... they don't ascribe that change to God but to natural selection that happened over time.
I'm not saying scientists engage in bad science though...

We seem to live in different worlds that overlap at no point.

Thanks for clarifying your position. Go well.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Does that mean "they were not his disciples"? Or do you believe they were two disciples who still clung on to their traditions of the passover being on two different days? So, if Johns writer was a disciple, he obviously was going to have his passover the next day. And the writer of Mark has already had the passover.

And are you claiming that Caiaphas or/and the chief priests were Essenes? Remember? They were plotting Jesus's murder two days prior to the feast of flat bread. And they were those who celebrated passover. Thus, in your contention Mark is an Essene writing. Also you mean to say that Jesus celebrated the Essene passover, not the pharisaic passover. And every single disciple in Mark celebrated the Essene passover. So in your thesis, John was a pharisaic writing, while Mark was an Essene writing. This is what you are pointing at.

Are you saying that the Sadducees followed the Essene passover?

Thats a little hilarious to consider. But fine. If you wish.



“Sixth hour
Matthew 27:45-46 “Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

John 19:14-16 “And it was the preparation of the passover; and about the sixth hour… Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priest answered. We have no king but Caesar….And they took Jesus and led him away.”

Third hour
Mark 15:25 “And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.”



Err. I think the same verse from John above confirms it mate. John 19:14.. It was at noon that they led him away. It is after that the crucifixion takes place. But in Mark, he was already crucified at 9 AM. You yourself said it.

Anything can be reconciled, but not objectively. You can cook up some story as far fetched as what you find lying around on the internet to reconcile this. But they are not historical, they are not textual, they are just pure conjecture and fantastic hard work.

Cheers.

GotQuestions.org and other sites demonstrate how different gospel writers use different reckonings for hours/time. There is no contradiction there.

The Pharisees and Sanhedrin members plotted to kill Jesus long before "two days before the passover".

What I'm pointing at is that Jesus and most of His disciples (Galileans) ate the Passover on the 13th, and were hosted not by Galileans, but by Essenes, for the last supper. Jesus had other meals with Pharisees, tax collectors, etc. which does not make Mark written by a Pharisee or a tax collector.