Can Christians see the bible as flawed due to its nature: a HUMAN recording?

[Firelad]

Troll: There ARE differences, and many of them. If you wish we can talk about this in detail after next Sunday because I have my last three final exams this week, tuesday(physics), thursday(history) and sunday(lit)... Bible as I said was last wednesday so the memory is still relatively fresh.
And I must go to sleep to study tomorrow. Gah.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Firelad
Troll: I mean that the idea of translating the text I am familiar with is laughable. If any text ever was impossible to translate without losing its meaning almost entirely, it's the Old Testament (I am not familiar with the New Testament). We study in that we read the text and attempt to understand what it says. Key word here is trying. The Bible is an immensly complex text, with layers upon layers upon layers of meaning, often the meaning of whole chapters lie hinged upon one word - or one of the some two dozen punctuation marks that appear in the Bible. I have sometimes compared (not very often or very many though) pieces of original and translation and, well, I say that if you want to read the OT then go study biblical Hebrew. It's a very interesting language too, much deeper and more complex than modern Hebrew.

Ok I see now!

I enjoy immersing myself in Bible Study. Not to your extent mind you, but I enjoy reading Herschall Hobbs, Matthew Henry and other teachers. I do pray for guideance and inspiration from God Almighty.

I wish you success in your studies and pray for your divine inspiration to arrive each and evrytime you thirst for the understanding of your studies!

Peace

Grandpa troll

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Firelad
Troll: There ARE differences, and many of them. If you wish we can talk about this in detail after next Sunday because I have my last three final exams this week, tuesday(physics), thursday(history) and sunday(lit)... Bible as I said was last wednesday so the memory is still relatively fresh.
And I must go to sleep to study tomorrow. Gah.

I would love to!

Maybe we could email sometimes. I love learning and would look forward to studying up on my OT. I am more versed in NT but have done some leading and studying (which goes hand in hand)

Peace

Grandpa Troll

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Troll


Question?

What makes you think they do not fit together?

God first spoke Creation into being. He created Eve from Adams Rib. He "created" both Adam and Eve. He created all other things, including all that live in this day and time, you,me,Ming and Solver. Even those that do not accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, because he gives all an option, to be quite literal.."Smoking"..Hell..or "Non-smoking" Heaven.

Even my old Catholic Bible notes that the stories are inconsistent. Here we go.

In the first story, God created men and women on the sixth day. That's Genesis 1:24 to 1:31.

In the second story, God makes Adam before the trees and the animals when "as yet there was no field shrub on Earth." Genesis 2:5. God makes man, then plants the garden in the second story. Where in the first story, Genesis 1:11 all of the plant-life was made on the third prior to man. Then, in the second story, God created the animals. In the first story, birds and non-mammals predate man by a day or two.

Ergo, the two stories are not consistent.

You see, you have to "confess with your mouth and believe in your heart" about whom Jesus Christ is.

I pray you know him as personal Lord and Savior!

Peace

Grandpa Troll

And that has Jack and **** to do with whether the Bible should be read literally or the medium of transmission (people) causes flaws in the message. And Jack done left town!

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by The Templar


Even my old Catholic Bible notes that the stories are inconsistent. Here we go.

In the first story, God created men and women on the sixth day. That's Genesis 1:24 to 1:31.

In the second story, God makes Adam before the trees and the animals when "as yet there was no field shrub on Earth." Genesis 2:5. God makes man, then plants the garden in the second story. Where in the first story, Genesis 1:11 all of the plant-life was made on the third prior to man. Then, in the second story, God created the animals. In the first story, birds and non-mammals predate man by a day or two.

Ergo, the two stories are not consistent.



And that has Jack and **** to do with whether the Bible should be read literally or the medium of transmission (people) causes flaws in the message. And Jack done left town!

No need to be testy, so to avoid this getting into a flamewar, which many talks do, I say Peace unto you

I shall pray for your understanding.

Peace

Grandpa Troll

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Troll
I shall pray for your understanding.

Peace

Grandpa Troll

Heehee! His name is 'Troll'. Get it?

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by The Templar


Heehee! His name is 'Troll'. Get it?

Yeah thats my name, it was meant as a joke, I used to be DrDanger ( a nicname from highschool).

But I am not "trolling", I am serious.

Salvation is serious. "Get it??"

Peace

Grandpa Troll

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by The Templar
Uh, how about the two strikingly different stories about the creation of people in Genesis. The original creation and the Adam and Eve story do not fit together.

Yes they do fit. Gen 1 is a general overview of the entire creation process. It does not give any details about Man's creation. Whereas, Gen 2 focuses on Man's creation, giving a more detailed account of Man's creation.

If you look at Gen 2:1-4a as a conclusion to Gen 1, things make a lot more sense. You have the day by day account of creation in Gen 1, that concludes with Gen 2:1-4a,

"1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.
3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created."

Note that "This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created." is a typical conclusion type sentence.

The story of Adam and Eve really starts at the second part of Gen 2:4,

"When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-
5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground,
6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground-
7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being."

Note that "when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens..." is basically saying "at the time when God had made the Earth, here is how things were when God made Man".

Gen 2:4b-7 is introducing us to the conditions prior to Man's creation.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by The Templar
In the first story, God created men and women on the sixth day. That's Genesis 1:24 to 1:31.

In the second story, God makes Adam before the trees and the animals when "as yet there was no field shrub on Earth." Genesis 2:5. God makes man, then plants the garden in the second story. Where in the first story, Genesis 1:11 all of the plant-life was made on the third prior to man. Then, in the second story, God created the animals. In the first story, birds and non-mammals predate man by a day or two.

Ergo, the two stories are not consistent.

You are incorrect. Gen 1 talks about the overall vegetation over all the Earth. Gen 2 is talking specifically about the creation of the Garden of Eden, see Gen 2:9 "And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground-trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

Gen 2:8, "Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed." explains that God created the Garden of Eden separately than the other vegetation.

Also, note that "he put the man he had formed" clearly proves that the Garden of Eden was made before Man: if Man was put in the garden, then it had to already be there before man.

Gen 2:19 reads, "Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name."

Note that "had formed" is past tense. The verse is referring to creation of the animals that was already done.

"he brought them..." shows that God was not creating the animals, but merely bringing them to Man so that Man could name them.

So, the verse is not saying that God created the animals at that time, but merely showing them to Man.

[Firelad]

Genesis 1 and 2 are most probably two very different stories.
First of all, Genesis 1 and 2 were probably put to writing by different people. There are several stylistic differences, most notable of which is the use of "Elohim" in Genesis 1 as opposed to the use of the Name in Genesis 2. It was noticed that those two different, predominant styles exist throughout the Old Testament. This already gives us a starting point.
Second, there is the difference in the *roles* of man in the two chapters. Genesis 1:26-27(my own translation) : "And God did say, we shall make Adam in our image, like our (charachter or figure); And they will be lords of the fish of the sea and of the birds on the sky and the of beasts and of all the land....And God did create the Adam (Man, Adama being Earth or land by the way) in his image, in God's image He made him; Male and female he created them" - Here Man is created as a part of the whole story of Creation, but also as its pinnacle. Contrast to Genesis 2:7-8 :"And (NAME) God did create the Adam, dirt from the earth; And He did blow in his nose breath of life; And the Adam did become a living soul. And NAME God did plant a garden in Eden, in the east; and he did put there the Adam he created." Here Man is created apart from the rest of Creation (look at Genesis 2:4), probably after it. His purpose now is to be the gardener of Eden (Gen. 15: "And NAME God did take the Man and did put him in the Garden of Eden, to farm (for lack of a better word) and keep it.") He is also created alone.
Now, we've got the paired pinnacle of creation in contrast to the lonely servant of God and His gardener. Also, the first story (as is typical of the "Elohim", or God style) is very epic and sweeping, while the second (as is typical of the NAME style) is much more personal. If not for the important differences between the role of Man in the two stories it could be said that those are two different views of the same story. But you cannot ignore the difference of role. Also, in the first story Man is created from nothing; When it is written "And God said," it means that God has just created something where there was nothing before. The second man is made out of clay, so to speak. Another important difference. Also, much later (don't want to look it up ) there's the story of Kain. Why does he need the sign - who is he afraid of? Also, he and his son (or just his son, don't remember) found a city. Where did he get a son? Where did he get people to populate the city? It might be speculated that the Man of the first chapter has populated Earth long before Adam and Eve (By the way, the meaning of her name is Mother of all that lives) were banished from Eden, which seems to be located in the Persian gulf or something accord. to Gen.2:10-14, and so you have the whole deal explained.
Or maybe those were two different stories and the editor liked them so much that he included both, just in case.

[Firelad]

Hmm actually the animals and such are indeed created AFTER Adam, but before Eve.

[Firelad]

Sorry for the rambling post btw...

[Shi Huangdi]

If the Bible is literally true, then when did Satan enter into Judas? During the Last Supper or before it?

John 13:27

As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.

Luke 22:1-3

1Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, called the Passover, was approaching, 2and the chief priests and the teachers of the law were looking for some way to get rid of Jesus, for they were afraid of the people. 3Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve.

Ah, and would 8 months wages be enough to feed the men who Jesus did with the fish and the loaves?

Mark 6:37

37But he answered, "You give them something to eat."
They said to him, "That would take eight months of a man's wages[1] ! Are we to go and spend that much on bread and give it to them to eat?"

John 6:7

7Philip answered him, "Eight months' wages[1] would not buy enough bread for each one to have a bite!"

There are more. Now, of course these and the Genesis story(which most Christians take are allegorical) are not really matters of great substance, but they do show the Bible is not the literal word of God, who would not contradict himself. It's important to remember that the Christian Church existed before the New Testament, part of the Bible, and the New Testament was put together to help us by giving us these Christian writings.

[Soul Survivor]

this has been done over and over, every question has an answer

[Firelad]

Talking about Satan, you should look how different he is across the Bible. From a Troublemaker in God's service (Job) to the fallen Angel (Genesis) to the modern Satan...

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Firelad
Genesis 1 and 2 are most probably two very different stories.
First of all, Genesis 1 and 2 were probably put to writing by different people. There are several stylistic differences, most notable of which is the use of "Elohim" in Genesis 1 as opposed to the use of the Name in Genesis 2. It was noticed that those two different, predominant styles exist throughout the Old Testament. This already gives us a starting point.
Second, there is the difference in the *roles* of man in the two chapters. Genesis 1:26-27(my own translation) : "And God did say, we shall make Adam in our image, like our (charachter or figure); And they will be lords of the fish of the sea and of the birds on the sky and the of beasts and of all the land....And God did create the Adam (Man, Adama being Earth or land by the way) in his image, in God's image He made him; Male and female he created them" - Here Man is created as a part of the whole story of Creation, but also as its pinnacle. Contrast to Genesis 2:7-8 :"And (NAME) God did create the Adam, dirt from the earth; And He did blow in his nose breath of life; And the Adam did become a living soul. And NAME God did plant a garden in Eden, in the east; and he did put there the Adam he created." Here Man is created apart from the rest of Creation (look at Genesis 2:4), probably after it. His purpose now is to be the gardener of Eden (Gen. 15: "And NAME God did take the Man and did put him in the Garden of Eden, to farm (for lack of a better word) and keep it.") He is also created alone.
Now, we've got the paired pinnacle of creation in contrast to the lonely servant of God and His gardener. Also, the first story (as is typical of the "Elohim", or God style) is very epic and sweeping, while the second (as is typical of the NAME style) is much more personal. If not for the important differences between the role of Man in the two stories it could be said that those are two different views of the same story. But you cannot ignore the difference of role. Also, in the first story Man is created from nothing; When it is written "And God said," it means that God has just created something where there was nothing before. The second man is made out of clay, so to speak. Another important difference. Also, much later (don't want to look it up ) there's the story of Kain. Why does he need the sign - who is he afraid of? Also, he and his son (or just his son, don't remember) found a city. Where did he get a son? Where did he get people to populate the city? It might be speculated that the Man of the first chapter has populated Earth long before Adam and Eve (By the way, the meaning of her name is Mother of all that lives) were banished from Eden, which seems to be located in the Persian gulf or something accord. to Gen.2:10-14, and so you have the whole deal explained.
Or maybe those were two different stories and the editor liked them so much that he included both, just in case.

Certainly very interesting. Definitely something to think about. thanks.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
If the Bible is literally true, then when did Satan enter into Judas? During the Last Supper or before it?

John 13:27



Luke 22:1-3



Ah, and would 8 months wages be enough to feed the men who Jesus did with the fish and the loaves?

Mark 6:37




John 6:7



There are more. Now, of course these and the Genesis story(which most Christians take are allegorical) are not really matters of great substance, but they do show the Bible is not the literal word of God, who would not contradict himself. It's important to remember that the Christian Church existed before the New Testament, part of the Bible, and the New Testament was put together to help us by giving us these Christian writings.

Actually, the term "Christian" was used first at Antioch (See Acts 11:26......and the Disciples were called Christians first at Antioch) also Isaiah 62:2 & Isaiah 65:15.

Peace

Grandpa Troll

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Firelad
Talking about Satan, you should look how different he is across the Bible. From a Troublemaker in God's service (Job) to the fallen Angel (Genesis) to the modern Satan...

Even Jesus has many names...

Wonderful

Messiah

Rabboni (Teacher)

The Good Shepard

Prince of Peace

Lord of Lords

King of Kings

Savior

Redeemer

Son of Man

Lamb of God


Many more, doesnt mean that Satan or Jesus is being defined differently. Just means both have many names, but only one true characteristic.

Satan is Evil, Dark and wrong.

Jesus is Love Redemption and Son of God


Peace

Grandpa Troll

[Firelad]

What about Isaiah 62 & 65? I didn't find any reference to Christening...

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Firelad
Talking about Satan, you should look how different he is across the Bible. From a Troublemaker in God's service (Job) to the fallen Angel (Genesis) to the modern Satan...

The Modern Satan is still considered to be a fallen angel. As far as what we can learn from Job, what it shows is that Satan is not more powerful then God, it was only through God's decreasing his protection of Job that Satan was able to do the bad stuff. Of course, Satan being the rebel he is he could have refused, but then the opportunity to torment God's righteous follower is not something he would turn down.

We can see stuff like this later on as well. Paul reported being attacked by demons, and later in Church history several Saints reported suffering attacks from demons as well.

[Firelad]

The word Satan in Hebrew means "Enemy". Sitna means "Slander" (More or less. It's like slander but it can be true or false). Basically, the Satan of Job is the divine prosecutor. He is not evil or wrong; he is just a being whose job is to find the sinners and prove their being such to God.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Firelad
What about Isaiah 62 & 65? I didn't find any reference to Christening...

This points to a new name for believers, Biblical scholars point to this, as the OT was phrophesying of things to come, as in The Messiah...Jesus Christ

Peace

Grandpa Troll

[Shi Huangdi]

It is the fundamentalists mistake to look at one bible passage in isolation and try to draw meaning from that without looking at the whole bible. Satan is not an employee of God in anyway, rather he led a rebellion of angels against God.

You are of course correct that he might appear as a divine prosecutor in Job, but that is not quite the way to look at it. God allows Satan to tempt Job(and tempt us today), but of course Satan would not be doing it to serve God and rather to try to harm God.

There is nothing contradictory in Job to the modern teachings of Satan. It is still taught that is only because God allows it that demons are allowed to work in this world. Satan does this to attack God's kingdom, God permits it supposedly as a test. And still today Satan can attack us usually indirectly(but in the rare instance directly) just as he did Job before.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
It is the fundamentalists mistake to look at one bible passage in isolation and try to draw meaning from that without looking at the whole bible. Satan is not an employee of God in anyway, rather he led a rebellion of angels against God.

You are of course correct that he might appear as a divine prosecutor in Job, but that is not quite the way to look at it. God allows Satan to tempt Job(and tempt us today), but of course Satan would not be doing it to serve God and rather to try to harm God.

There is nothing contradictory in Job to the modern teachings of Satan. It is still taught that is only because God allows it that demons are allowed to work in this world. Satan does this to attack God's kingdom, God permits it supposedly as a test. And still today Satan can attack us usually indirectly(but in the rare instance directly) just as he did Job before.

Amen!

The important central Biblical teaching we can and should get is God allways has provided us a way out of Sin, he offered Job and he offers us, read the Epistle (Letter) of Jude, we should not as Humans take on Satan, for we will lose everytime, however, God wont. In Verse 9, (Jude is only One Chapter) Jude, Brother of James, states even Michael the archangel when contending with the Devil, defers to have The Lord rebuke him.

Great example for all of us Humans to follow, if an Angel wont go head to head, why should we?

Jesus will and does rebuke the evils which attack our sinful selves!

Peace

Grandpa Troll

[monkspider]

As an advocate of Jesus' great teachings, I certainly do accept that the bible is the work of mere men, and therefore, quite fallible. Just as Zylka stipulated however, that does not make it irelevent by any means, but the greatest truth will ultimately be found when one breaks the chains of religious dogma.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by monkspider
As an advocate of Jesus' great teachings, I certainly do accept that the bible is the work of mere men, and therefore, quite fallible. Just as Zylka stipulated however, that does not make it irelevent by any means, but the greatest truth will ultimately be found when one breaks the chains of religious dogma.

Read Revelation 22:18-20. These are words inspired and affirmed by Jesus Christ. I am not sure what you men by an "advocate"?..do you mean you believe in and follow Jesus Christ? If so than you would and should believe in The Bible as God's Inspired Word. Fallible..not even so..of course, Read Hebrews 11:1..for we live by Faith....us believers that is..

I just say because I was wondering how if your a believer and follower of Jesus Christ you would not loudly announce His Word?

Jesus Christ is The Greatest Truth.


Peace

Grandpa Troll

[Shi Huangdi]

"Read Revelation 22:18-20."

That caution there seems to apply to the simply the Book of Revelation, which is special in that it was revealed to John directly by an angel. Even still that book is very most likely filled with heavy symbolism.

"Just as Zylka stipulated however, that does not make it irelevent by any means, but the greatest truth will ultimately be found when one breaks the chains of religious dogma."

I would caution you just because the bible isn't infallibale doesn't mean you can just decide God's teachings to be anything you want them to be.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by The diplomat


You are incorrect. Gen 1 talks about the overall vegetation over all the Earth. Gen 2 is talking specifically about the creation of the Garden of Eden.

The order in which things get created differ between stories. On a lesser note, some scholars (Ernest Kaulbach for instance) note that in Genesis 1, man and woman are created at the same time in the divine image. Genesis 2 has man created in God's image and woman created later.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Troll


Read Revelation 22:18-20. These are words inspired and affirmed by Jesus Christ. I am not sure what you men by an "advocate"?..do you mean you believe in and follow Jesus Christ? If so than you would and should believe in The Bible as God's Inspired Word. Fallible..not even so..of course, Read Hebrews 11:1..for we live by Faith....us believers that is..

I just say because I was wondering how if your a believer and follower of Jesus Christ you would not loudly announce His Word?

Jesus Christ is The Greatest Truth.


Peace

Grandpa Troll

Well, citing bible verses saying the bible is infallible is kinda silly really, I never understood why fundamentalists always do that.

Jesus is the greatest truth as you say, after all, he lived the perfect life and is the greatest paradigm for mankind to follow. His teachings, they simply give me chills, he is so enlightened and full of love. The bible is not necessarily so, however. It is great, and truthful in many places, but not the greatest truth. The greatest truth comes from within, and God's own revelation to each of us.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

I would caution you just because the bible isn't infallibale doesn't mean you can just decide God's teachings to be anything you want them to be.

I agree.