Is the bible the word of God or men?

quote:

---

The Bible can't prove the Bible to be true.

---

This applies to academic maths only: we cannot prove maths by maths. Genesis can be proved by numerous factors: historical veirfication via archeology; math proof via datings; science proof via provable analogous experiments. The OT has never been disproven - by non-academic, hard proof; while 1000s of its stats have been proved. Upto some 15 years ago, archeologists claimed David was a myth - this has been overturned by the Tel Dan find, evidencing David was a true historical figure and wrote the psalms 3000 years ago; the psalms contain numerous mentions of Moses, and alligns with the complete narratives of the OT. I find ToE adherents prefer to pick what they like, and ignore a host of positives about Genesis.

quote:

---

Just staggeringly wrong. There aren't even "millions" of potential facts in the OT, there simply aren't enough verses. A cursory google says there are 23,145 verses in the OT (give or take a bit, OK). Just 2 million facts would require a staggering 86.41 facts per verse.
A million is very big Joseph.

---

If you give 10 words per verse, and apply all the OT upto Micah - the final OT book, you have millions of stats and sopecs, or 100s of 1000s if only the five books are considered.

Joseph, Simply because a flood or floods occured; or that you can date the scriptures; does not indicate anything contained in the Bible in reference to YHWH to be true. The claim of David writing Psalms may be true although that does not prove that Moses existed or that YHWH is a true God.Edited by tthzr3, : err

---

Thank you

quote:

---

Simply because a flood or floods occured; or that you can date the scriptures; does not indicate anything contained in the Bible in reference to YHWH to be true.

---

In a court trial, a diary is considered as proof - even in a murder trial. If the OT diarised account is provable of its historicity, it renders it an athentic account. However, we cannot prove Creationism or dislodge it, and the OT vindicates itself by declaring the Creator is not provable. There is no arguement left here.

quote:

---

Upto some 15 years ago, archeologists claimed David was a myth - this has been overturned by the Tel Dan find, evidencing David was a true historical figure and wrote the psalms 3000 years ago; the psalms contain numerous mentions of Moses, and alligns with the complete narratives of the OT.

​

The claim of David writing Psalms may be true although that does not prove that Moses existed or that YHWH is a true God.

---

Yes, it does. Moses was a mere 250 years from David; all the writings, datings and historical finds here evidence authenticity. Contrastingly, there is not a shred of disputing contemporary evidence - thus your statement is w/o basis. Moses is believed in and has impacted humanity, more than any other figure who ever existed, by period of time and concencus: 2B christians; 1.2B muslims and 15M Jews: more than Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha. The OT is the world's most proven document - despite its anciency.

Joseph, Well the issue is really a matter of determining if the Bible is folk tales or not. Take for example that the Torah has TWO creation stories in it. That still does not prove that Moses existed. Jesus also has impacted MANY people but there is not a shred of evidence that he actually existed. Keep in mind the Bible can't verify the Bible.

---

Thank you

tthzr3, I am glad that we understand each other better. No, but it does seem a little strange used this way. More like an account long after the fact, by someone else. Referring to ones own death and period of mourning etc. is going way beyond using the third person, and into the realm of the seriously bizarre. All very well in a modern novel perhaps, but not believable in a purportedly factual document of such antiquity.
Now back to the world of dreams, as I valiantly attempt to talk sense into IamJoseph...

---

Mutate and Survive

quote:

---

Well the issue is really a matter of determining if the Bible is folk tales or not. Take for example that the Torah has TWO creation stories in it.

​

Yes, it does. Moses was a mere 250 years from David; all the writings, datings and historical finds here evidence authenticity. Contrastingly, there is not a shred of disputing contemporary evidence - thus your statement is w/o basis. Moses is believed in and has impacted humanity, more than any other figure who ever existed, by period of time and concencus: 2B christians; 1.2B muslims and 15M Jews: more than Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha. The OT is the world's most proven document - despite its anciency.

​

That still does not prove that Moses existed. Jesus also has impacted MANY people but there is not a shred of evidence that he actually existed. Keep in mind the Bible can't verify the Bible.

---

No, there's not two stories, but correctly portrayed by genesis. Ch 1 is a generic creation; ch 2 becomes a personalised one when man becomes historical. Moses is not proven and the only figure of this status, but evidenced; you ignored that while predating Abraham's burial is known, Moses' burial was never known - the non-proof is alligned with the text narratives.The premise of the OT should rely on provable, historical stats. The OT cannot be posited as 'stories' - they contain evidential dates and names of kings, nations and cities, with far more specifics than concerning Jesus, Mohammed or Buddha, even though those were more recent figures and should not fall short of evidence. Humanity's enigma is, we have a finite universe - and it is inexplicable outside the Genesis creationism premise: the fulcrum factor here.

No, this is the math test. 23,145 verses (including Micah, including the lot) divided by 200,000 dates (the smallest possible interpretation of your claim) gives us 8.64 dates per verse. Go to your Torah and see if there 8.64 dates per bloody verse.Also, for the record, the Sumerians had a working calendar some 17 thousand years before the epoch date of the Hebrew calendar, but I expect you are going to say that I am wrong, because that would be "pre-universe". I'm off to bed now, sleep tight!

---

Mutate and Survive

Joseph, Please explain these indications to me if there is not two creation stories.The first indication is Genesis 1:31 because everything God created was complete after 6 days but in Genesis 2:4 LORD God created the heavens and earth in a day.The second indication is in Genesis 1:27 because God created male and female at the same time but according to Genesis 2:6-7 LORD God created male and then created female later(2:20).The third indication is the word God/Elohim is used in Genesis 1:1-31, 2:1-3 but in Genesis 2:4-25 LORD God/YHWH Elohim is used.The fourth indication is that the overall order of creation in Genesis 1:1-31, 2:1-3 is different than in Genesis 2:4-25.The fifth indication is that Genesis 1:1-31, 2:1-3 the creation seems to be more sophisticated than the creation in Genesis 2:4-25.The sixth indication is that in Genesis 1:1-31, 2:1-3 each thing created was considered good but in Genesis 2:20 it seems creation was a process of trial and error.The seventh indication is in Genesis 1:26 because there seems to be more than God creating but in Genesis 2:4-25 there is only LORD God creating.The eigth indication is Genesis 1:29 because all plants are available for eating but in Genesis 2:16-17 some plants are off limits to eat.The ninth indication is in Genesis 1:28 because humans subdue the earth but in Genesis 2:15 humans serve the earth.The tenth indication is Genesis 1:21-22 because the purpose for animals is not related to humans but in Genesis 2:18-19 the purpoose for animals is related to humans. So you accept the Bible simply because nobody can explain the void yet?

---

Thank you

Grammar was introduced in the OT. One of its requirements is, the most coherent path must be take in comprehension. The notion of a third party becomes moot here, while that of asking how can one write his own epitaph becomes an errorful path. Almost the entire narratives of the OT are in a third person, the correct mode of a retrospection account. Moses' death description is immediately followed by the book of Joshua, his successor, and accounts for a close-off of the OT five books.Further, the premise of a modern novel is out of premise here: writings were more complicated before, and this is seen most in the pristine writings of the OT, emulated by the greatest writers. The first expressionism and third party disposition comes from the OT; the shortest distance between two words are used; the most appropriate adjestives employed; controversial subjects like incest and beastiality are dealt with with the stroke of a few words - w/o resorting to expletives; and there is a total interaction of all its stats. Eg:The giving of the 10 commandments' date and day is known, by calculating all the 3000 years' dates in the OT calendar. In fact, the texts also interact. Consider the texts, which says 'REMEMBER TO OBSERVE *THIS DAY* AS THE SABBATH'; that *THIS DAY* was in fact a Saturday! Where can we find such mathematical acumen anywhere else - never mind in such an ancient text? Where can we find the first alphabetical books, so advanced that it incorporates advanced grammar and numerals within the alphabets? Where can we find the first scientific cencus, in their millions, with sub-totals of gender and ages - with sum totals of verification at the final count? These cannot be called 'stories'.If we find a statute which says the pig is the only animal with a hidden biological trait not shared by any other animal, and this is vindicated after 3500 years, one must ask how this could be known: did Moses know there was no such animal in Tasmania or the Amazons? A fluke guess becomes negated when we find four other stats about different animals, even of fish in the oceans. This makes me see that biology was fully understood here. So was medicine, which was first introduced here, with its first separation from the occult: the treatment, ID and quarantine of malignant, infectious and contagious deseases is introduced with the desease of Leprosy. Medicine is the firerunner of science. The first scientific equation is the universe is finite, and repro comes from the seed factor. At least, there is great science here - which has never been dislodged.That the first creation chapter uses a technical word for 'create' [something from nothing], which does not appear again after the first verse, and is replaced by 'formed [something from something else] - it does not appear a 'typo' but intentional; specially when it alligns with Creationism. This is why these do not appear as stories of myth or chance - else I would not pursue such thoughts. There is a notorious phobia of any writings which allign with a theology or creationism - because it contradicts what bible bashers like to hear. But the OT is varied from all other bibles - it appeared 2000 years before the NT and Quran, and contains what those do not even mention: the universe origins.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Iamjoseph,You still have not offered any evidence that proves or even theorizes YHWH to be a true God.

---

Thank you

quote:

---

The second indication is in Genesis 1:27 because God created male and female at the same time but according to Genesis 2:6-7 LORD God created male and then created female later(2:20).

---

The second is an expanded explation of the first. 'Human' kind was the last of the chronological life forms; human is then posited as a dual-gendered life in its originality, and separated later. There is no alternative to this. The texts is perfectly presented. Genesis had to first introduce the concept and premise of a human's emergence; then explain what that is. Its qualification is in 'MAN AND WOMEN CREATED HE THEM' - meaning the first human was dual-gendered, and there is no alternative to this, concerning all life forms in their original appearence.The same vercity applies with your other questions. There are not two names in Genesis - there are no names for the Creator in the OT. Those are descriptive and contextual: one concerns creation through nature; the second in respect of a speech endowed life form, whereby direct interaction and dialogue is employed. The first reference is an objective one; the second a subjective one. It is how you would explain to a child how the house he lives in appeared: you would speak objectively first, because it predates the child's emergence; then when the child is relevent and born, you would speak subjectively. It alligns with Monotheism, and that 'THERE IS NO OTHER'. The OT is like a maths treatise - all its tets are interactive and intergrated, so all stats must be factored.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Joseph, Read below it represents YEHWEH makes mistakes.

​

not a man to till the ground.

​

Gen 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

​

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

​

Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

​

Gen 2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

​

Gen 2:10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

​

Gen 2:11 The name of the first [is] Pison: that [is] it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where [there is] gold;

​

Gen 2:12 And the gold of that land [is] good: there [is] bdellium and the onyx stone.

​

Gen 2:13 And the name of the second river [is] Gihon: the same [is] it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.

​

Gen 2:14 And the name of the third river [is] Hiddekel: that [is] it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river [is] Euphrates.

​

Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

​

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

​

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

​

Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

​

Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.

​

Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Oh and if you're going to make WAS up then don't even bother to debate with me.

---

Thank you

quote:

---

Read below it represents YEHWEH makes mistakes.

​

not a man to till the ground.

---

Before the rains, there was no man to till the ground. Immediately, we find here the reason for introducing the rains in the following verse.

I cannot do that. And you should ask such.