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

[Jayhawker Soule]

They placed the whole of the OT/NT forward, mistakes and errors and all. Because in context, they did not care about them. It was supposed to be as they placed it forth, which includes errors, mythology, allegory and metaphor, song and poems.

You pretend to know so much more than you know. It's shameful.

 

[sojourner]

The people of Moses time, although they may not have understood the roundness and rotation of the earth, nontheless would have understood that the sun is the cause of daylight

No. They didn't. While the sun was bright and hot, it was not considered to be the source of light -- only an indicator of "day." The sun, moon, and stars were thought to be fixed upon a rigid dome covering the disc of the earth. The dome would turn about the earth.

if the authors of genesis knew it was factual that daylight came from the sun, and wrote effectively that the sun was created on the third daylight period, is it reasonable to assume that this/these author/(s) believed the Genesis story to be a factual story?

They didn't know that.

it is clear that right from the beginning, the creation story was not intended to be a factual story, could it then have had allegorical meaning right from (to use a pun) the beginning?

I think the story is quite mythical and allegorical. But not in the way the poster suggested -- nor can it be twisted in order to try and make it line up with science.

 

[sojourner]

The Day is a Period that guidance is on earth as Light of Guidance. Night is the period of the absence of the Divine Prophet.

Way too metaphysical for Genesis. You're not reading the text with proper criticism.

The Bible is not a science Book to talk about physical creation or people lived before Adam. Religion has its own role, science its own role.
The Bible chooses to 'look' at a cycle of humanity from the Days of Adam.

But as science has proved, there were people living before Adam thousands and thousands years before.

See above. That's not what Genesis intends. Genesis is an etymological account of the beginning -- not some metaphysical treatment of the spiritual condition of humanity.

The Noah story is also Figurative. The 'Ark' is the symbol of covenant and faith. Those who entered it were saved. Different pairs of animals symbolized, different tribes and sects. Those who perished, were among the ones that did not enter the Faith of God and died 'Spiritually'.

Again, see above. This is an excellent example of eisegesis -- reading into the text what one wishes to see. What is needed is exegesis -- reading out of the text what's actually there. And in order to do that, one has to engage some textual criticism. The Noah story comes from much earlier mythic tradition, and cannot be ascribed the same sort of theological treatment as much later, characteristically Judaic writings.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

As G-d is far greater and far much beyond what Man can comprehend in This World, why do you think "it makes no sense.
G-d is Creator of the Universe; of All and Everything; of All Life; and Man; and G-d relates to each individual atom, not to mention Man, on a deeply personal level.
Why would you think that G-d would conform to your limited understanding of time?
That actually makes no sense.


Why?
G-d is describing the Creation of All and Everything, trying to put what is incomprehensible into words to which Man can relate.
Why would G-d not use all of the emotional and intellectual tools of Man to describe what can only be told in allegory; in psychological parables; in esoteric wisdom?
Do you view G-d as some high school science teacher? Should G-d be hired or fired based on how well the slowest student understands the equations?
I would say not.
There is nothing in any religion that I know of that impoverishes G-d to the level of a computer; a Reciter of facts and figures who is evaluated on whether or not the readers pass the test...
Most religions I know of place G-d as the Father; He who loves His children; Mankind; with an infinite love and whose Purpose is that ALL human beings, no matter what their emotional or intellectual or physical capabilities are, should grow closer to G-d's Love and His Understanding.

G-d purposely speaks to Man's Heart and Soul as that is everyone's common denominator...

Because it's God. God is omnipotent, so with all those powers it would be possible for God to communicate with people without there being any possible issues of not understanding. God is not limited like humans are. There is no fast or slow to God in terms of human intelligence. Gods words would make no difference to the dumbest of the dumb or the smartest of the smart. It would mean the same.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Way too metaphysical for Genesis. You're not reading the text with proper criticism.

give an example how I am not reading it with proper criticism.

See above. That's not what Genesis intends. Genesis is an etymological account of the beginning -- not some metaphysical treatment of the spiritual condition of humanity.

Again, see above. This is an excellent example of eisegesis -- reading into the text what one wishes to see. What is needed is exegesis -- reading out of the text what's actually there. And in order to do that, one has to engage some textual criticism. The Noah story comes from much earlier mythic tradition, and cannot be ascribed the same sort of theological treatment as much later, characteristically Judaic writings.

Well, I already showed other verses in Bible that use 'Exactly' same terminologies and expressions, and Christians generally agree they are Metaphors.
I think a consistant interpretation would be correct. Within the context, light means guidance, and darkness is ignorance, and so forth.
Moreover, for us, Baha'is the Book is unsealed, hence we know the mysteries in it

 

[outhouse]

No

Anything that is complied by, translated by, and ultimately interpreted by MEN is bound to have errors of some kind!

In case the above comment wasn't clear....YES, I believe the bible has errors. Your point?

Would I have bothered to categorize them differently if there wasn't? :sarcastic

Thank you for that. Now, let me introduce you to some real science:

An rainbow occurs when light reflected off water droplets in the atmosphere is viewed from a certain angle. The water droplets refract the light into the colors of the visible light spectrum (red to violet).

Isn't it fortunate that we have the internet and forums like these, where we can meet new people and introduce them to brand new concepts that they've never would have known about otherwise?

Your not having a real debate when you duck and dodge facts presented by others, your running for cover. That is not debating. :slap:

 

[outhouse]

You pretend to know so much more than you know. It's shameful.

Sniping ones personal bias without explanation is shameful as well.

 

[Awoon]

What do posts #141 and #147 have to do with the Opening Post? Are they trolling and Bullying each other?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What do posts #141 and #147 have to do with the Opening Post? Are they trolling and Bullying each other?

Absolutely correct. Off to the ignore list with both of you ...

 

[Whiterain]

Try Norse Mythology, fabulous. I can keep people interested right to the cosmic cow. Still I love it and think it is excellent.
It made me think of both realms of science/magic and spirituality, It just worked for me. I made me think more than
anything, my faith in the Æsir is bonafide with personal experience yet I can prove nothing.

I learned that a lot of the Old Testament came from Babylon age Iraq?

 

[Awoon]

Absolutely correct. Off to the ignore list with both of you ...

If I posted what you just did I would get a point for trolling. You seem to be able to get away with trolling and bulling remarks while the rest of us get warnings.

How do you do it?

 

[captainbryce]

Correct. However, please let me point out your goal here:

How about you let ME do that instead (instead of you taking my words out of context).

Rather than formulate a subjective opinion about why I think the bible is wrong or right, or why other people who I've never met before may or may not follow it, I'd rather focus on debating the actual issue, which is the content of the bible, and determining whether or not it is actually erroneous. If it is erroneous, then we should point out specific examples of the errors, and determine whether or not these can answered. If they can, then the entire premise of the OP's question is flawed to begin with. If some can and others cannot, then the OP's question may have some validity (with multiple explanations). If none of them can, then OP's question is perfectly valid and your assumptions about other people should perhaps be given more weight than they currently have as it stands.

Highlighted are all of the parts that you left out when you attempted to mis-characterize my position. You're welcome!

For the record, I'm well aware of some specific errors to various translations of the bible. So it wouldn't be logical for you to assume that my intent is to prove that the bible has no errors. It certainly does! I'm simply waiting to see of you or the OP can point some out, which might cause a believer to question whether or not they should still be a believer. And so far, you have yet to do that!

By the by, we're still waiting for a reply to my:

2 Kings 8:26 says “Two and twenty [22] years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign…”

2 Chronicles 22:2 says “Forty and two [42] years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign…”
​

42 ≠ 22

Reply: Both accounts specify that he reigned one year "in Jerusalem" but neither specify where he "began to reign." Thus we must gather from the context where exactly Ahaziah began to reign in each of these accounts. In 2 Kings the focus is on Israel, so Ahaziah "began to reign" (as co-regent) in Israel at the age of 22. In 2 Chronicles the focus is on Judah, so Ahaziah "began to reign" in Judah at the age of 42.

Texas Newspaper says,
"George W. Bush was 49 years old when he began to govern; and he governed 8 years in Washington."

Washington Newspaper says,
"George W. Bush was 54 years old when he began to govern; and he governed 8 years in Washington."

These two accounts do not contradict. The Texas Newspaper focuses on Texas politics, so it tells the age of George W. Bush at the time when he began to govern Texas as the state governor. The Washington Newspaper, on the other hand, focuses on federal politics so it tells the age of George W. Bush at the time when he began to govern the United States as the president. The accounts may be unclear without the qualifying phrases, "as governor" or "as president," but unclear parallel statements are not the same as contradicting parallel statements.

Co-regency was typical in the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel. We see that demonstrated in the cases of Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Jotham, Jeroboam II and Manasseh. Ahaziah was co-regent of Israel at age twenty-two and later became king of Judah at age forty-two.

1 Kings 4:26 says “And Solomon had forty thousand [40,000] stalls of horses for his chariots…”
​

2 Chronicles 9:25 says “And Solomon had four thousand [4,000] stalls for horses and chariots…”
​

4,000 ≠ 40,000

1 Kings 4:26 says:
“Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen”.

2 Chronicles 9:25 says:
“Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen”.

The two verses do not contradict because they describe different types of stalls. The stalls in 1 Kings 4:26 were "of horses" which were used for chariots and by horsemen. Nothing in this verse says that these stalls were for the chariots. On the other hand, the stalls in 2 Chronicles 9:25 were for "horses AND chariots". Such a stall to house both horses and chariots would not have been as numerous as stalls to house just horses because there is always a smaller ratio of chariots to horses. In fact, 2 Chronicles 1:14 says there were 1,400 chariots. Hence it makes sense that there would be less of these stalls that were capable of storing both horses and chariots.

So, still no erroneous scripture, only erroneous comprehension through faulty interpretation. Anything else?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes: much better!

 

[captainbryce]

:foot: :sorry1:
Actually I apologize for saying that, because I hadn't read the other post from IT and when I did read it, I understood where you may have misunderstood.

No problem. Cheers!

I don't believe the Genesis story is referring to the physical evolution of humanity, but rather the moral or spiritual evolution of humanity.

Thus, humans are not referred to being like primitive beasts in a physical sense, but rather in a spiritual sense. It is a symbolic way of saying that the character of man was not refined all at once, but that rather his spiritual education went through stages of development.

Fair enough!

 

[captainbryce]

Your not having a real debate when you duck and dodge facts presented by others, your running for cover. That is not debating. :slap:

I haven't ducked or dodged ANY facts. I'm aware of the facts (and the associated OPINIONS). I simply don't see the relevance. And when you start telling me what I "need to know" and assume that you are "introducing me" to something new (as if you are somehow more educated than I am) it demonstrates an air of superiority that is not particularly worthy of a debate! Thank you but I have Wikipedia too.

Now, If/when you'd like to actually ask a question related to the history of flood myths, or explain to me the relevance of your facts as they apply to scripture, I'm all ears! Until then, what else is there to debate?

 

[sojourner]

give an example how I am not reading it with proper criticism.

This:

Well, I already showed other verses in Bible that use 'Exactly' same terminologies and expressions, and Christians generally agree they are Metaphors.

When you're reading critically, you read that text and analyze it on its own merits. You can't compare it to "other verses in the bible," unless those verses were from the same text, or unless they're the same type of writing -- and then only to establish a pattern for what the text in question might be. What are these "other verses?" Are they the same type of writing? have you explored the origins of the text? Where did it come from? Are there extra-biblical parallels? What is the historical context of the text? What literary tools are used in creating the story? How does the text fit in context with what immediately surrounds it?

I don't see that you've asked or answered any of these questions -- and that's just for starters.

Christians generally agree they are Metaphors.

"They" what? Which verses? Because I can tell you that "Christians [don't] generally agree" that the stories are metaphor. They may be allegory, but they're not metaphor.

I think a consistant interpretation would be correct.

"A constant interpretation" between what? These "comparative verses" remain anonymous.

Within the context, light means guidance, and darkness is ignorance, and so forth.

Within what context? Because I can assure you that that's not what it means in the context of the creation myths.

Moreover, for us, Baha'is the Book is unsealed, hence we know the mysteries in it

The problem is, there are no "mysteries" written within the Genesis creation myths. Sure, we can assign "mysteries" to them, but that would not be borne out by the texts, themselves.

 

[outhouse]

I haven't ducked or dodged ANY facts.

You claimed a flood, yet dodged the questions and statements directed towards you.

Are you taking a literal interpretation, or creating your own version cherry picking what you want?

 

[Sha'irullah]

I'm not sure how to take that.

I would recommend you take my compliments with 2 ounces of Gentleman's Jack and 3 ounces of Everclear followed by a solitary cheers to your intelligence.

My compliments are best taken while ****-faced :yes:

 

[Sha'irullah]

You claimed a flood, yet dodged the questions and statements directed towards you.

Are you taking a literal interpretation, or creating your own version cherry picking what you want?

You do realize the Bible was never meant to be taken as historical yet alone factual right?

The greatest revelation from god ever given has been the revelation of mankind's ability to reason

 

[captainbryce]

You claimed a flood, yet dodged the questions and statements directed towards you.

What question have I not answered? You asked two questions. The answer to the first one was NO and the answer to the second was YES. After that, I saw an attempt at a history lesson! What question have I "dodged" according to you?

Are you taking a literal interpretation, or creating your own version cherry picking what you want?

FALSE DICHOTOMY! Not everything in the bible is meant to be taken literally. When you read it in context, this fact is usually self evident. Claiming that to be "cherry picking" is silly, and really demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of how to read and interpret scripture.

To answer the question (lest I be accused of "dodging" )

Genesis 6:17
Look! I am about to cover the earth with a flood that will destroy every living thing that breathes. Everything on earth will die.

What is the intent of this scripture? Recognizing that the bible "is not a science book", and knowing what the Hebrews knew about the world as they wrote Genesis, what is the logical way to interpret this scripture. Do we want to get down into the weeds and claim that it is a lie because not EVERYTHING on earth died? I mean, the bacteria survived right! Bacteria is "living", therefore the bible must be a lie right?

Or, do we use some common sense and apply the scripture by the message it was intended to convey. The intent of the scripture is to relay that all humans, everywhere in the world (and all the animals associated with humans) will be destroyed. The Hebrews would have known that fish and seagoing mammals would have survived a massive flood and wouldn't need to be taken aboard the Ark. How exactly could one house whales on an ark in the first place? Anyway, "every living thing that breaths" is obviously a reference to humans and animals that require dry land. Not fish, whales, plankton, viruses or bacteria! Furthermore, why would a "global" flood be necessary to kill all of humanity if all of humanity inhabited the same region of the planet (Mesopotamia). Why would it be necessary to flood Antarctica or Greenland if there were no people there? The answer is, IT WOULDN'T. Therefore, the "worldwide" flood that destroyed all the people and animals, was actually a local flood that destroyed all of the people and animals (that people needed), except those that were on the ark. That's the only logical way to interpret the scripture. It's not cherry picking, it's applying common sense within the context of the scripture.