If some parts of the Bible can't be trusted how can any of it?

Born2Preach writes:

quote:

---

...it's just that the only connections I have with people that are in the ministry and are willing to help the up-and-coming newbies happen to be Southern Baptists.

---

This gives me an opportunity to say something good about these people. They really are at least somewhat better than many of their fundamentalist brethen, at least because they are more willing to help others in need no matter who those others are. Southern Baptists (as well as Baptists of all stripes, from what I've seen) will be the first to help you if you've suffered a catastrophe of some sort, such as an auto accident, a tornado, flood, serious illness, etc. They want to help no matter who you are or how strongly they might disagree with you on political and/or theological issues.When new treatments for AIDS were developed in the 90s, many local victims participated in studies on these treatments and were brought back to near-perfect health. When the studies were complete, those victims (the vast majority of them, actually) who couldn't afford to keep taking the new drugs were in danger of reverting to ill health. Eventually, legislation was passed to help them, but in the interim many local congregations, including Southern Baptists, actually saved the day for these people by providing money to pay for the drugs. I was flabbergasted to see it, and it changed my opinion of them. I will always be grateful for what they did. I still disagree with almost everything they stand for and I'm still disgusted with their judgemental attitudes, but I have to admit that when these people see someone in need, apparently no matter who it is they will do what they can to help.

Hezekiah made a "b'rekah" (pool or pond), and a "t'alah" (watercourse or trench), and caused water to come in to the town.Quite a welcomed feat of crude engineering for folks who highly valued a reliable, steady, and relatively fresh supply of water; but hardly rocket science.Also remember, this was at a time when other Old World cultures had developed lengthy stone aquaducts, and stone-aged residents of the Peruvian desert had layed out miles of surface monumentation aligned with an intricate underground network of well-maintained water conduits. So, really Hezekiah's feat of connecting a pond with the town using an open trench was no big deal.Peace. Ab.This message has been edited by Abshalom, 06-04-2004 02:26 PM

I'm quite sure that the folk in the village were thrilled to have water.My problem though is not with getting water to the town square, it is with the many alive today that seem to think they have to justify the Bible by showing that it contains all current and future technological knowledge and that had we not been so stupid, we could have had rocket science 3000 years ago.People in the past did not look on the world, on history and on geography with the same perspective we have today any more than we share the same world view of those who will follow us 3000 years in the future. Even the meaning of things we consider basic, for example truth, and honesty, have changed dramatically over the centuries.I think the difference in point of view was best summarized by Urban VIII when he said

quote:

---

It would be an extravagant boldness for anyone to go about to limit and confine the Divine power and wisdom to some one particular conjecture of his own.

---

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

which genesis? in hebrew, gen 1:27, the first "created" is an imperfect tense, denoting a lengthy process. (look it up: Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible)so uh, the bible does support evolution. if you read it literally.

The New and Old Testaments of the Christian bible are a selection from an array of books and also a selection from an array of versions or copies of those books.This is not meant as a conclusive argument and I anticpate that those who claim inerrancy will simply say that the books that entered the canon were the ones chosen by God. But once the Roman church settled on a dogma and a bible and began suppressing views they didn't agree with they reached a point where they offered a single viewpoint of history. Coming into contact with the religion at this point one finds a straightforward and fairly simple story.The problem as I see it is that when the church lost the power to basically kill or threaten to kill anyone who disagreed with it and we began to study history we can't find much that fits the church's story of how things happened.The bible is not a single book. It is a selection of books and versions of books from a much larger number. The state of the manuscripts vary. It just strikes me as odd that had an all powerful God wishing to equip humanity with an official manual that this divinity would allow it to be treated in the manner that it has been treated.The church through persuassion and propaganda and force has brought about a false impression of the bible for it's own political ends. And it has been very effective. Of course those who seek a simple absolute view of life are content not to examine the teachings and dogma given them because they want what is being offered. But if it was the word of God rather than the word of men why wouldn't it have been done perfectly, like say for example ... gravity?peace,
nelf

If some parts of evolution theory can not be trusted, how can any of it.....................?Stupid Topic.

None of the theory is supposed to be trusted.On the other hand, all of the theory is supported by evidence.

The topic title, " If some parts of the Bible can't be trusted how can any of it?", is something I've heard from fundimentalist Christians/creationists quite a few times.Many creationists seem to have an "all or nothing" attitude towards a number of things, including the accuracy and value of the Bible.I think that many, even including atheists, beleve that the Bible contains valid, usefull information, even if some parts are flawed.Moose

The reason we take an all or nothing approach is because God is supposed to be perfect and his words perfect. If they are full of mistakes and can be changed whenever people want according to mans theories then what the hell kind of religion have we got here?. Certainly not from God, just a belief system to satisfy the soul????. Id rather a religion that fits reality.

this is why people don't believe the bible.people HAVE made mistakes. people HAVE changed whatever they wanted. and it doesn't fit reality.the all or nothing approach is stupid. and i'll prove it to you. go out and get a bible, or find a spare one. take a magic marker, and write something in it. anything. even if it's nice, true, whatever. now give book to someone else, and tell them the bible is the word of god. did god strike you dead? did he stop you?the bible can only be the inerrant and complete revealed word of god if and ONLY if man has no freewill.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 07-05-2004 04:49 AM

Reality!? And what is that? And even more important how do you know what it is? or that it is?lfen

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arachnophilia

​

. . . in hebrew, gen 1:27, the first "created" is an imperfect tense, denoting a lengthy process.

---

Hello Arachnophilia,Please allow me a minor correction. While the first "created" in the Hebrew text of Gen. 1:27 is indeed in the imperfect tense, it cannot be construed as denoting a lengthy process.If you look at the text, you will see that the term in question is preceded by the conjunction "vav" (meaning "and"), i.e. ויברא (v'yibara)This is what is known as a "vav consecutive" and can be prefixed to imperfect verb forms to express sequence in the narrated past. This construction is sometimes referred to as the "vav conversive". It is used to denote consecutive actions that from the reader's viewpoint took place in past time. To denote the consecutive narration, the translation of this construction is usually preceded with the use of "and then" or "and so".Thus, rather than indicating a lengthy process of creation, Gen. 1:27 should simply be read, "And then , created God, the man in His image."A good example for comparison can be found in Gen. 1:3, "And then said God, let (there) be light, and (there) was light."Here the verb "said", אמר (amar), is also found in the imperfect tense, but again with the "vav" conversive construction, i.e. ויאמר (v'yomar). And, of course, rather than indicating that God took a long time to give the command, it simply indicates that the next event in the narrated sequence was, "And then God said . . .".Hope this might clear up some misconceptions.As always, namaste'Amlodhi[edited to correct minor typo]This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 07-05-2004 11:31 PM

i'd really like to learn to learn hebrew someday. i wonder if they have classes on it anywhere...

Try your local synagogue.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Arachnophilia,Regarding your scenario of writing something in the bible...If you write something that contradicts other writings in the bible, it would probably be noted by the reader and then investigated further.Are you assuming that most people read the bible without ruminating the material?