why are there errors in the bible and yet people follow it?

[1AOA1]

Sterling Archer:"So you believe a serpent literally spoke to Adam and Eve? You believe the world was literally created in 6 days?
You believe that Jacob literally wrestled with a supernatural being for hours on end?"

When the bible speaks of a serpent, Adam, Eve, Jacob, and so forth, it isn't referring to the physical body as you do. When you ask who is Adam, for example, it isn't simply a matter of pointing to the physical body.

 

[captainbryce]

Sterling Archer:"So you believe a serpent literally spoke to Adam and Eve? You believe the world was literally created in 6 days?
You believe that Jacob literally wrestled with a supernatural being for hours on end?"

When the bible speaks of a serpent, Adam, Eve, Jacob, and so forth, it isn't referring to the physical body as you do. When you ask who is Adam, for example, it isn't simply a matter of pointing to the physical body.

Okay, I'm not following you here. Would you mind elaborating on this?

 

[1AOA1]

captainbryce:Okay, I'm not following you here. Would you mind elaborating on this?

To use an analogy, take the case of what is more commonly referred to here as dressing in clothes.The clothes is the physical body, and the man is the soul. Materialists would believe that clothes talk. And in addition to that, some clothes talk while others can't. Then when they read somewhere that some clothes which wasn't supposed to be talking was talking, they ask you why you believe that those clothes talked. What I said was that the texts don't say that clothes talk in the first place

 

[sojourner]

Why do some people continually engage in baseless generalizations?

When will all your rhetorical questions ever end?

 

[sojourner]

the bible does in fact have a few miracles here and there about science, because it was the word of God however its been corrupted. thats what we all muslims believe (and so do the biblical scholars lol)

"Corrupted" means that, at one time, there was one, pure thing that, over time, became something else. Biblical scholars don't use that term broadly to describe the bible, because the bible never was one, pure thing that could be "corrupted." Fragments? Bits of text? Absolutely! And when a bit of text is "corrupted," it's due to fragmentation and loss of an early copy, or the text becomes in some other way unreadable. But as a whole, the bible cannot be "corrupted," because it has always been the nature of the bible to be edited and redacted.

 

[sojourner]

So you believe a serpent literally spoke to Adam and Eve? You believe the world was literally created in 6 days?
You believe that Jacob literally wrestled with a supernatural being for hours on end?

I pity you for your imagination.

Please provide the evidence for Abraham, Noah, and Moses's existence.

I have to agree with Jay here. The bible is history, because it has preserved the written Tradition. Does it contain verifiable historic fact? Quite a bit. Does it also take a lot of license with historic fact? Quite a bit.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The degree of historicity found in the Bible is practically nil if you take their accounts as word for word events.

And this is -- word for word -- one of the most inane sentences I've come across in these forums.

So you believe a serpent literally spoke to Adam and Eve?

As a matter of fact, I do not. Nor do I believe that pathetic non sequitur does much for an argument. There is a vast spectrum between the extremes of "practically nil" historicity and "entirely authentic" history.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Sterling Archer:"So you believe a serpent literally spoke to Adam and Eve? You believe the world was literally created in 6 days?
You believe that Jacob literally wrestled with a supernatural being for hours on end?"

When the bible speaks of a serpent, Adam, Eve, Jacob, and so forth, it isn't referring to the physical body as you do. When you ask who is Adam, for example, it isn't simply a matter of pointing to the physical body.

But you are not reading it as a literal serpent then so you are out of the equation.

Also I have read the Bible and a good portion of the torah. Metaphors are by no means intended

 

[Sha'irullah]

As a matter of fact, I do not. Nor do I believe that pathetic non sequitur does much for an argument. There is a vast spectrum between the extremes of "practically nil" historicity and "entirely authentic" history.

You dodging my question Jay.

Is the Tawrat historical? Can anything depicted in it be proven as history within the context of the literature?

The fact you are calling questions pathetic is a good indication for me that you have nothing to validate your argument against my original. You just got a little riled up that I do not view the tora as remotely historical.

Until you can prove otherwise I am going to keep on hurling bricks here.

 

[InChrist]

Revelation is a prophetic vision (a dream if you will) of what John saw, and his interpretation of that vision. It heavily relies on symbolism and metaphors, where certain images are used to represent something else. Yes, there are some passages that are purely literal, such as when God says "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End". We know that this is literal because elsewhere in the bible it describes God as being eternal. But what is literal and what is allegory in Revelation can easily be determined just by comparing the scriptures written in the book of Revelation to other scripture. If/when a passage in Revelation seems to contradict scripture elsewhere, then the reader must be misinterpreting it by taking it in a literal sense when they shouldn't be. The Lamb being the light is clearly a metaphor. For one thing, Jesus is not a literal Lamb, he is a person! To take it literally would not make any logical sense. So right there we have a metaphor within a metaphor. The logical reading of the passage would be to conclude that Jesus being the "light" is also a metaphor, and not literal visible "light".

I agree with all of that. This is a logical and consistent way of understanding scripture based on the context given within the Book of Revelation and outside of it.

But that's not what you suggested initially when you referred to God being the "light" without the sun in Genesis 1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounded like you were suggesting that the light that God created in the beginning was literally coming from himself and not the Sun.

I agree with you that one must be consistent in using other passages elsewhere in scripture to interpret the verses in Revelation correctly or in any book of the Bible for that matter. Again, I do agree that there is a lot of metaphorical language in the book of Revelation, such as Jesus being called the Lamb. Yet, I don’t see applying the term Light as literal light to His Being or God’s Being as inconsistent with the scriptures as this seems to be indicated elsewhere.

For example when returning for spending time with God on Mt Sinai Moses’ face reflected God’s light:
Now it was so, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai (and the two tablets of the Testimony were in Moses’ hand when he came down from the mountain), that Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone while he talked with Him. So when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him. Exodus 34:29-30

When the shepherds heard the announcement about the birth of Jesus the Savior they saw the literal light of God’s glory shine around them:
And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. Luke 2:9

When Paul was met on the road to Damascus by the risen Jesus Christ the literal light of Christ blinded him:
And since I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of those who were with me, I came into Damascus. Acts 22:11

And John describes the countenance of Christ like the strength of the shinning sun:
He had in His right hand seven stars, out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword, and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength. Revelation 1:16

I am not suggesting that God did not create the sun to give light. I am only saying that since the text says the plants were created on the third day and the sun and moon on the fourth day it is feasible, from my perspective, that God Himself provided or was the literal light in the meantime.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

... it sounded like you were suggesting that the light that God created in the beginning was literally coming from himself and not the Sun.

Hi captainbryce,

It might be that the Light that Genesis 1 is talking about, is not literal light, but it means knowledge. Light is knowledge, darkness is symbol of ignorant.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Gen 1:14-18 claims that God made the sun on the 4th "day". How can there be three "days" before the sun even exists?

In the Scriptures, Sun is the symbol of Messengers of God that are raised.
The Light is the symbol of guidance from God.

Gen. 1 is talking about Creation in a spiritual sense, not physical. It is allegory with inner meaning.

Gen 1:11;12 claims that plant life was created before the sun. How can there be plants without any sun?

Gen 1:11:

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."

grass, fruits are symbol of spiritual growth of mankind. tree yielding fruits represents the word of God (or Faith of God)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is the Tawrat historical?

It is called Torah.

 

[captainbryce]

I agree with you that one must be consistent in using other passages elsewhere in scripture to interpret the verses in Revelation correctly or in any book of the Bible for that matter. Again, I do agree that there is a lot of metaphorical language in the book of Revelation, such as Jesus being called the Lamb. Yet, I don’t see applying the term Light as literal light to His Being or God’s Being as inconsistent with the scriptures as this seems to be indicated elsewhere.

But again, we should be able to tell whether or not the term "light" is being used literally or figuratively based on the context of how other, similar scriptures that use that term to refer to him.

John 1:4
In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.

John 3:19
This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

John 8:12
When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, "I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

John 12:46
I have come into the world as a light, so that no one who believes in me should stay in darkness.

These passages from the book of John tell us that "light" is being used as a metaphor and that it represents "life", while darkness represents sin and "death". That light of Jesus (the truth, the way and the life) is eternal life in Christ! Therefore, we should interpret the usage of the term "light" to refer to Jesus in the book of Revelation (also written by John) in the same way. To switch up now and interpret it as literal light would be inconsistent with the tone John sets by using that metaphor in the first place.

For example when returning for spending time with God on Mt Sinai Moses’ face reflected God’s light:

Now it was so, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai (and the two tablets of the Testimony were in Moses’ hand when he came down from the mountain), that Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone while he talked with Him. So when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses, behold, the skin of his face shone, and they were afraid to come near him. Exodus 34:29-30

You are quite correct. The difference here is that in the book of Exodus, God actually radiates light (literally) because he appears to Moses as a burning bush.

Exodus 3:2-4
2 There the angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. 3 So Moses thought, “I will go over and see this strange sight—why the bush does not burn up.” 4 When the Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, “Moses! Moses!” And Moses said, “Here I am.”

This is a literal account of what Moses actually saw, not a prophecy or a dream! The scripture is telling us that God actually appeared to Moses as flames within a bush. Flames radiate light (literally), which means that in this context, God was literally radiating light. So it makes perfect sense to Exodus 34:29-30 in the literal sense if God intended that his light reflect off of Moses to witness to the people.

I also believe that "light" can be taken literally in the other passages you mentioned based on the context of the scripture. But light shining on someone from the spirit of God or the body of Christ is something quite different from what Genesis 1 is talking about during creation. Genesis 1 is told from the perspective of an observer on the surface of the planet Earth. We know that because the creation story establishes point of view in the very second verse "and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." That means that whatever is being described in Genesis 1 is from the point of view of the observer over the surface of the earth.

Genesis 1:4-5
4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”

God could not have been the source of this light if he separated it from darkness, because he was the observer in the story. Furthermore, calling light "day" and calling darkness "night" from a logical standpoint can only mean a reference to the rotation of the earth, and the sun as the source of light.

I am not suggesting that God did not create the sun to give light. I am only saying that since the text says the plants were created on the third day and the sun and moon on the fourth day it is feasible, from my perspective, that God Himself provided or was the literal light in the meantime.

But the text DOESN'T say that he "created" the sun, moon or stars on the third day (or the fourth day as most interpret it). It says that he created the heavens and the earth "in the beginning". The heavens and the earth in biblical Hebrew is a reference for the entire universe and everything in it, not "empty space". So every body that is in the heavens (sun, moon and stars) were "created" in the beginning. As I said in a prior post, the only thing that actually happens on the fourth day is that God allows the sun, moon and stars to be seen (from the perspective of an observer over the surface of the Earth). He removed the thick layer of clouds that was obscuring the view of the heavenly bodies that produced the light. The fact that the word "made" appears in all verb forms in Hebrew tells us that verse 16 is a reference to what God already did at some point in the past, not on day 4. Verse 16 is a recount of creation day one (just as the entire chapter of Genesis 2 was a recount of creation day 6), and verse 17 explains the purpose of those specific creations on day one. But nothing is actually "created" on day 4.

 

[captainbryce]

Hi captainbryce,

It might be that the Light that Genesis 1 is talking about, is not literal light, but it means knowledge. Light is knowledge, darkness is symbol of ignorant.

The problem with this interpretation is that it basically means that we have to throw out the entire creation story as allegory. Because Genesis 1 goes on to specifically describe the separation of light from darkness, in terms of day and night. And it goes even further to describe the purpose of the sun, moon and stars. It would be extremely difficult to dismiss ALL of those references as one metaphorical reference to "knowledge" and "ignorance" based on how specific and detailed the story is constructed. The only way to do so would be to render the entire chapter of Genesis 1 as an allegorical reference for something that didn't literally happen, but only a story meant to symbolize a "beginning" of sorts.

 

[Sha'irullah]

It is called Torah.

Sorry for my Muslimish habits.

But as I said before, you have no argument until you can validate the events in the Tanakh.

I love the Tanakh......but it is entirely mythological for me. Enlightening.....but still not truthful on its outer shell.

 

[rusra02]

why do Muslims continually try to twist the bible into something it was never supposed to be? The bible never was "God's words."

Christ said it is. (John 17:17) and the evidence for the Bible's inspiration by God proves that Christ knew what he was talking about.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Christ said it is. (John 17:17) and the evidence for the Bible's inspiration by God proves that Christ knew what he was talking about.

That would be the laws that he gave to moses, not the Bible. If I remember correctly even when the term Evil or Wicked is used, it's used to describe those who do not observe the Torah law (correct me if I"m wrong).

 

[sojourner]

Christ said it is. (John 17:17) and the evidence for the Bible's inspiration by God proves that Christ knew what he was talking about.

He's not talking about the bible here.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

The problem with this interpretation is that it basically means that we have to throw out the entire creation story as allegory. Because Genesis 1 goes on to specifically describe the separation of light from darkness, in terms of day and night. And it goes even further to describe the purpose of the sun, moon and stars. It would be extremely difficult to dismiss ALL of those references as one metaphorical reference to "knowledge" and "ignorance" based on how specific and detailed the story is constructed. The only way to do so would be to render the entire chapter of Genesis 1 as an allegorical reference for something that didn't literally happen, but only a story meant to symbolize a "beginning" of sorts.

Yes, that seems to be a problem, but where there is a problem, there may be a solution too.

I think the key here is to reconcile the genesis with what Paul wrote, in 2 Peter.
In your opinion, why would He all the sudden talk about "God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water"? How could the earth be out of the water, yet be in the water?

I mean, how would these statements be related in the context that Paul is talking about, and why should He say 'a day of God is 1000 years'? This can be a hint to interpret the creation story as He understood it:




3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.