The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally

ChristineR said:
For the rest of you guys:
Since Cain et al lived thousands of years, Cain's wife could have been a sister, niece, grand niece, great grand niece, etc. etc. At some time brothers and sisters would have had incestuous sex, but this is the Bible--worse things are routinely excused.
Click to expand...

If you google "cain's wife" you get a bunch of links including Answers in Genesis. www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp Ken Ham claims that Adam and Eve had many children and these other siblings are who Cain feared. He even mentions that Josephus claimed Adam and Eve had 33 sons and 23 daughters (!). Ham says the Bible only mentions "many sons and daughters" so the exact number is not confirmed. Ham states that Cain's wife was either one of his siblings or another close relative. Ham rationalizes this by saying that God did not create the incest taboo until much later and even attempts to use DNA and genetics in his explanation.
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
Originally Posted by jesus_freak
My Bible say says 22

In my Bible footnotes...
"Some versions read forty two here,a copyist error easily made due to the small stroke that diffentiates two Heb. letters. The reading from 1kings 8:26 twenty two should be followed.
Click to expand...
It's not inerrant, then.
Click to expand...

Neither are American history books.

So?
 
jesus_freak said:
The godly base their confidence on two truths: 1) “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16); and 2) an elementary rule of Scripture is that God has deliberately included seeming contradictions in His Word to “snare” the proud. He has “hidden” things from the “wise and prudent” and “revealed them to babes” (Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).
Click to expand...

Why does that sound familiar?
.
.
.
Oh yeah!
Korey Rowe speaking on errors in the Loose Change film
ROWE: What I encourage people to do is go out and research it themselves. We don't ever come out and say that everything we say is 100 percent. We know there are errors in the documentary, and we've actually left them in there so that people discredit us and do the research for themselves -- the B52 (remarked to have flown into the Empire State Building), the use of Wikipedia, things like that. We left them in there so people will want to discredit us and go out and research the events yourself and come up with your own conclusions. That's our whole goal, to make Americans think. To wake up from the 16 amps of your television to watch something and get a passion in something again.
Click to expand...
http://alternet.org/story/40476/
 
I would like to address the 100% true aspect as opposed to the self contradictions.
To me the lack of mentioning evolution is the least of the scientific blunders that are found in Genesis. The chronology as has already been summarized in a previous post as follows:
logical muse said:
In Genesis Chapter 1, God makes:
  • the Earth on the first day
  • Heaven on the second day
  • Water, grass, herbs, trees, etc on the third day
  • The Sun and the Moon on the fourth day
  • Living things on days five and six
  • Man and Woman, both, on the sixth day, after making the creatures
Click to expand...

The sun is created after the earth, light, and plants. This leads to many obvious problems:
1. Without the light source(sun) how is there light? Where is it coming from?
2. Without the light and head from the sun how are plants able to perform photosynthesis and how is any life supposed to withstand the lack of heat from the sun?
3. Planets forming prior to their star is contrary to modern understanding of the formation of solar systems. Additionally, without a sun how is there a solar system?

Why does genesis leave out so many groups of organisms? No bacteria or protists or fungi. No mention of viruses either. Bacteria infact far outnumber all other organisms combined. Wouldn't God know this? Why did he keep that a secret?

Genesis refers to the sun and the moon as lights. While the sun is most definitely a light source, the moon isn't. The moon is merely a reflector of light. Guess God forgot to take a physics class.

This is less of a scientific point but nonetheless, Genesis also insinuates that the purpose of stars is for calendarial purposes. Yes of course. All of the BILLIONS upon BILLIONS of stars exist for the sole purpose of our time keeping. You know those stars are suns just like our own and for all we know orbiting one of those stars is a planet with LIFE!!!

Seriously, if you are mad a evolution because it contradicts genesis you are just picking and choosing. In order to accept this as litterally true we would have to throw out basically everything we know about how the universe works.
 
CACTUSJACKmankin said:
Why does genesis leave out so many groups of organisms? No bacteria or protists or fungi. No mention of viruses either. Bacteria infact far outnumber all other organisms combined. Wouldn't God know this? Why did he keep that a secret?
Click to expand...
Then where would be the fun in inventing the microscope?
 
jesus_freak said:
The godly base their confidence on two truths: 1) “all Scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16); and 2) an elementary rule of Scripture is that God has deliberately included seeming contradictions in His Word to “snare” the proud. He has “hidden” things from the “wise and prudent” and “revealed them to babes” (Luke 10:21), purposely choosing foolish things to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).
Click to expand...

God sounds a lot like Dylan Avery. Perhaps they're related?
 
Hunster,

this is the thread title and subject:

"The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally "

it is the entire premiss from which this thread exists.

so when you say:

"Neither are American history books."

in response to the statement:

"It's not inerrant, then."

Your entire point is moot

because...

this is the thread title and subject:

"The Bible is 100% true and to be read literally "

it is the entire premiss from which this thread exists.

so when you say....
 
Satan created the bible just to deceive you. That's why there are so many errors and contradictions.
 
Darth Rotor said:
That seems to be consistent, if you go by definitions. Satan is Evil and God is Good, so it should follow that Satan's tricks are bad, and God's tricks are good, based on their source.

Mary Magdalene's tricks, on the other hand, cost a few sheckels before she left the oldest profession . . .

DR
Click to expand...
But , was she worth it - and did she have Kids for Jesus (Who Would Jesus Do?):D :D
 
jesus_freak said:
Judas could have tied a rope to a tree branch that extended over a cliff (after all, you have to get some space between your feet and the ground to hang yourself). In this situation, the rope/branch could have broke before or after death, and Judas plummeted to the ground and landed on some jagged rocks.
Click to expand...

Sure. And Jesus "could have" been referring to a different David who took the showbread from the High Priest than the one mentioned in Samuel.

I'm a new guy here, folks, and discussions regarding the Bible are my specialty. jesus_freak, if you want to have a discussion regarding this subject I would be very happy to join you.

The topic here, however, is much too broad. I like this one regarding Judas' death, however, and how you try to reconcile it. Would you like to start another thread where THIS topic --and this topic alone ("Judas' Death") is covered? I can't reply every time there is a new post; I have a busy life outside this forum, but I promise to give the topic the attention it deserves if you are patient enough to bear with me.

But, recognizing the problem this current topic can bring when terms are not defined, perhaps you can help us know what you would consider a contradition if we found one in the Bible. The best way to do that is if you could show us an example of a contradiction from another book (non-biblical). In addition, what do you think a contradiction would like like if there were one in the Bible? If you could write such an example (in English, not using forumlas like "X and not-X") that would be very useful in helping us identify potential contradictions in the Scriptures. In other words, can you give us an example of what kind of statements you would accept if they were to be found in the Bible?
 
Last edited:
jesus_freak said:
now what do i win?
Click to expand...
nothing but self-gratitude.
Far be it from me to judge anybody's personal walk with God, but with YOU, I'm not going to make any excuses for myself.

I see not an ounce of "love" from you in any way. Your attitude is the very antithesis of Christ's teachings, you know, the lesson on the "fulfillment of the law," the law summarized into two comandments: loving God and loving others. I just don't see it. In you I see a critical person that would rather be right than be compassionate. The bottom line is that the book which the bible is printed in and reproduced in a factory, and sold for as much as $100 is only a conduit for "the Word." Why? Because St Paul talks about how Christians will be challenged and how their revelations of "truth" seem like "foolishness" to the minds of men. That's because, like the printed book that preachers read from, the minds of men are of the flesh, a conduit for the Spirit. Only by the Spirit can people receive devine revelation. So, no, I don't trust a word in the bible.

I would go so far as to say that anyone who says a reproduced "bible" is the infallable word of God is an idolator.

God isn't going to reneg his gift of free will so he can enslave a bunch of guys to write the truth down and reprint it over and over again.

People are infallable- people wrote those words- people printed them and bound them, left them in hotel rooms or sold them for rediculous amounts of money.

The word of God cant be purchased. And you are going to get anywhere telling anybody anything different, especially in a forum for SKEPTICS!

Are you winning any souls with your cause? No, I would surmount that you're driving them away, so what the hell is your problem?

St Paul NEVER said his letters were the infallable word of God, remember that, too.

Believing that the Bible is "the living word" is just like believing that the Eucharist really is the process of wine and bread turning into the flesh and blood of Christ, and that is something that protestants just dont buy (which I'm assuming you are).

Good luck with your engagement of legalizim, its futilty at its best.
 
Last edited:
Tony said:
So then that stuff about free will is BS?
Click to expand...
No really. Anyone who has free will is Satan. It's like a dual thing, a la God/Jesus. You're the deity and the human wrapped into one. In the case of Jesus, it was in combo with God. In the case of every other human that's ever lived, it's been the Satan combo. Satan does this by impregnating human women, every one who's ever been pregnant. Except for that Mary gal back in ole' Nazareth, but that she's also Satan. That's the real mindblower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom