The Infalibility of The Bible FAQ

[Guest RobJohnstone]

indeed death angel, indeed.

 

--Rob

[Guest Sandman9000]

Once you've seen one religious flame war, you've seen them all. It all degenerates down to Robbie Stone vs. Everyone in a Bible-knowledge pissing contest anyway. Close this one, wait ten minutes, and there will be another one.

 

Add me as an advocate for the religion folder. Put the disclaimer like on Current Events, have SpiderPoet as Folder leader like Ricky Choysu is for Puro, and let those who enjoy arguing over religion do their dirty work there.

[Guest RobJohnstone]

Isn't it always me against the world?

 

--Rob

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Well GOD had some good input in writing the bible by placing Adam,Noah, and Moses to write pieces of it.  If you look at it that way then indeed GOD did write the bible.

 

--Rob

Did someone mention my name?

Yes. Can I watch Citizen Kane?

You have me confused with your roommate Evenflowddt.

Ummm... riiight! You're probably with some chick huh? Right, I am. Silly me. Moses doesn't like something ghey like wrestling. He does, however, enjoy "knowing" new people, particularly shepherd's daughters. Not to mention fine ass Mary Magdalene. Wink wink, nudge nudge

[Guest Sandman9000]

Isn't it always me against the world?

 

--Rob

When you position yourself that way, then yes it is.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

BTW is you could answer these I would be greatfull.

 

 

Where did the space for the universe come from?

 

Where did matter come from?

 

Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?

 

How did matter get so perfectly organized?

 

Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?

 

When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

 

When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

 

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

 

Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)

 

How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

 

Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

 

Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

 

When, where, why, and how did:

Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)

Single-celled animals evolve?

Fish change to amphibians?

Amphibians change to reptiles?

Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)

 

How did the intermediate forms live?

 

When, where, why, how, and from what did:

  Whales evolve?

  Sea horses evolve?

  bats evolve?

  Eyes evolve?

 

  Ears evolve?

 

  Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

 

Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?

The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body’s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?

The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?

The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?

The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?

The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?

The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?

The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?

The immune system or the need for it?

 

There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

 

How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

 

When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

 

*How did photosynthesis evolve?

 

*How did thought evolve?

 

*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?

 

What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

 

*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?

 

*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?

 

*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

 

 

--Rob

Where did God come from?

GOD is everywhere and has always been.

 

--Rob

1. Mass was spread across the universe by a giant combustion reaction. This is called the "Big Bang" to the layperson. The space was always there, there was just nothing in it.

 

2. See #1

 

3. Gravity is a direct product of the attraction of smaller objects to larger ones. the laws of physics are the laws by which all matter reacts and acts, they didn't COME from anywhere, that's just the way the universe is.

 

4. Do you mean on earth? When water appeared, when the Earth entered the correct position around the Sun for life to be possible, a group of Carbons, Nitrogens, and Oxygens, joined to for Organic matter.

 

5. For most animals the instinct to have sex is irresitable. The parental bond is simply a deep-rooted instinct; it's part of the genetic make-up.

 

6. Possible. It's also possible that since they're all Carbon-based and are all forced to adapt to Earth conditions (In the Universal sense of the word.) there would be natural simalarites. Perhaps you can tell me why there are no more short-necked giraffes, but there are long-necked ones?

 

7. A two-celled organism is multi-cellular. Allow me to quote one of my favorite movies to explain why we came from Amebas:

 

Mutation. It is the key to our evolution. It has enabled us to devolop from a single-celled organism, into the dominant species on this planet.

 

Intermediate forms of life lived by procuring food, and reporducing. (What the fuck is the point of this question?)

 

All the things you named evolved because a Species was placed into a situation where those with a certain trait had a favorable chance of survival. They already had that trait, but when they survived and thoise without it did not, they breeded with other members of the species that had that trait, and the trait became more pronounced. Example: Girraffe Necks.

 

Symbosis evolves because of evolution. Those oprganisms which have the best chance of survival, survive. They pass this knowledge on to their descendants in the form of instinct.

 

Why did Man evolve feelings? God gave them to him. I believe in God, just not in this Fundamentalist crap.

 

Thought evolved through use. Simple as that. the more experienced Man was at rationalizing the better he became at it.

 

What the fuck does that mean "hydrogen becoming human" get this boy a periodic table.

[Guest Danny Dubya v 2.0]

A religion forum would be very nice... but NOT to contain this sort of useless opinion-based powderkeg of shit.

 

If there is a forum for it, any threads that evolve into arguments about interpretation of the bible or christianity should be deleted on the spot. It should be about... um... positive discussion. Like... recent events. NOT FUCKING SCRIPTURE.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Once you've seen one religious flame war, you've seen them all. It all degenerates down to Robbie Stone vs. Everyone in a Bible-knowledge pissing contest anyway. Close this one, wait ten minutes, and there will be another one.

 

Add me as an advocate for the religion folder. Put the disclaimer like on Current Events, have SpiderPoet as Folder leader like Ricky Choysu is for Puro, and let those who enjoy arguing over religion do their dirty work there.

With all due respect, when DEATH ANGEL says your post mind-opening, you deserve to be leader of a religon folder.

[Guest Danny Dubya v 2.0]

With all due respect, when DEATH ANGEL says your post mind-opening, you deserve to be leader of a religon folder.

...was that a jab at me? I couldn't tell, sorry...

 

If that had to do with my name, it was an e-fed gimmick at one point. Nothing more.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

With all due respect, when DEATH ANGEL says your post mind-opening, you deserve to be leader of a religon folder.

...was that a jab at me? I couldn't tell, sorry...

 

If that had to do with my name, it was an e-fed gimmick at one point. Nothing more.

Not at all. It was a compliment. You were wary of this thread, but you gave it a chance, and liked it. It's not a jab at you at all.

[Guest JMA]

Eh, I'm not into religion. The devout are usually too close minded to accept that they could be wrong. Therefore, all arguments eventually get you nowhere. I myself am an atheist, and pretty proud of that fact. I consider people like Jesus Christ to be philosophers, not God incarnate. Buddha was deified by people the same way. That's the way it goes, great men are deified. That being said, my only real problem is with people who use religion to justify their hate.

[Guest SP-1]

I originally saw this thread and thought, "No. Bible Infallibility is supremely heated discussion and could get rather lengthy as well. I have enough problems standing up to my family right now without endless arguments on TSM as well."

 

But I couldn't resist. I look in and I am dismayed. I will say that Rob and I share a similar theology in that I believe the Bible to be infallible, I believe in the six day creation, etc.

 

At one time, I subscribed to the idea that the passage of time for us and for God is suprememly different, thus our itnerperetation of six days was actually events spread out over millions/billions of years. But then I came across the objections to carbon dating, the inaccuracies of alot of the guess work in science that tends to get overlooked and I'm not going to tackle here.

 

Current science is just that: current science. There was a time when the Earth was flat and the center of the universe and you could get into serious trouble for saying otherwise. The greatest example of evolution is that science must evolve because it constantly moves and flows and proves itself wrong with a new right theory. It doesn't hold all the answers as far as I am concerned. I've researched scientific theories based on Christian principles and they generally make a good deal of sense to me.

 

If anyone is interested, I would be more than happy to see if I can find some of those websites and post their addresses here so that you can go off and read and I'll trust that God will take the data once it's in your head and do whatever he wishes with it, if anything at all.

 

So that's my take. If you're going to say that the Bible is full of mistakes because men wrote it, then be prepared to admit the exact same thing for science because that's largely the guess work of men as well, and is in a constant state of flux.

 

Have a good evening all, I hope that I've managed to perhaps help put this one down. But I'm not gonna dig in and argue here either as it's not going to do much of anything.

 

--SP

[Guest RobJohnstone]

Thanks SP I knew you could lay it down better than I could.

 

--Rob

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

you all know we came from reptile aliens who wish to kill us all. ;-)

[Guest SP-1]

RED, does that guy have a website? I really want to see this theory.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

David Icke's site is at www.davidicke.com and I hope you clicked my link on the wink as it went to the Reptilean page

 

[Guest LooseCannon]

OMG! Bill Clinton is a reptile?!?

[Guest SP-1]

Thank ye. I hit up rense.com and all just for the comedic value.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

True story:

 

I was once walking around in a public library and one of the guys was logged onto the David Icke site.

 

I then swatted his neck with my lizard tongue, sucked out his blood to maintain my manity and ran.

 

Ok.. I'm just kidding on that last part.

 

 

I say all soldiers should have these googles, as it would freak out the Iraqis.

 

It's a war crime to spike the water supply of the Iraqi army with LSD, right? Hilarity would ensue!

[Guest SP-1]

Dude if they just got LSD into just the Iraqi army's food and went to war with those things or something. However. I would want video footage.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

It'd be a FOX special. "When LSD is put in stuff"!

 

which reminds me.. I think I missed the Fox special for something godawful that was gonna be at 7pm CST tonight or this week

[Guest DrTom]

Isn't it always me against the world?

 

--Rob

Shouldn't that tell you something?

 

(And no, that's not an invitation to quote from Ezekiel. )

 

(Edit: bloody IBtags)

[Guest DrTom]

About this thread in general, and the arguments that have followed:

 

I will not close this thread because, so far, nothing in it has violated any of the board rules, nor the rules for this folder. Censorship because someone doesn't like a topic is the worst kind of all. Religious debate can get tiresome, but there's no reason people shouldn't be able to engage in it, and considering the kind of responses these threads usually get, NHB is the best place for it. I maintain that a religion folder is a terrible idea.

 

Many of you know I'm an atheist. As such, what's put forth in the Bible doesn't really mean much to me. I look at it as a book of derivative mythology, which scaremongers and demagogues have used and interpreted over the years to engineer the behavior of the masses. It's interesting to read in spots, but the more didactic portions of it are brutally boring. I used to be a Catholic, so I've read both the Bible and The Catechism (formerly The Baltimore Catechism, for you old-schoolers). I know how "the other half" lived, and I'm much happier being on this side of the fence.

 

Zsasz: You showed me more with your initial post in this thread than in every other post I've seen you make. Good job. BTW, any moderator can change your name while preserving your post count, but with the SQL features disabled, I'm not sure that's working right now. PM me with your desired nom de board and we'll see if it works.

 

Oh... and for those of you who were fighting over the last word as if it were the golden fleece: if this thread were to be closed, whoever closed it would have the last word.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

Science has certainly changed over the years. This is normal. Newer scientists expand on theories presented by other scientists, I think Sir Issac Newton summed it up best when he said:

 

If I see farther, it is because I stand upon the shoulders of giants.

 

Science continually improves upon itself.

 

Besides, if you read the Bible, God's attitude towards humanity changes drastically. In the OT he seems much harsher and even creul at some points. Where as in the NT, God, in the form of Jesus, preached forgiveness, love and compassion.

 

PS: SP, most educated people believed the world was round since the time of Ptolmey. Only the poor believed you could fall off the edge of the world. I understand your point, but it was a bad example. - Zsasz.

[Guest SP-1]

The example was a means to an end, Zsasz. My point was that man-made theories and the like change, and has very little foundation. The scientific understanding of reality might shift radically with a single discovery. Tomorrow, the next day . . . a month, a year, a decade from now. Maybe not in our lifetimes. Maybe in two minutes.

 

Those of us that believe in a straightforward infallibility of the Bible do so because either

 

(1) The person is operating on unbelievably blind faith. Which my man's terms is foolish but I believe God will guide them true regardless so I don't really care if this person is viewed as a fool by men. And I'd wager they don't care, either.

 

(2) They've gone and tried to see if there's been any efforts to match things up. And there have been. There is good Christian science out there that tries to pull both sides of the fence together and the end result is some pretty interesting stuff.

 

My point is this: Those who believe are going to believe. God is in full control of that and no amount of arguing is going to change that. Those that don't . . . well they don't. Simple as that. I believe our job is to present the information in a loving, compassionate way. We have the authority to do so, regardless of what other men think. What God does with the data once it's in their minds and hearts is completely up to God. Whether they accept it is up to them and God knows all about it.

 

It does not seem in line with God's character to have His Almighty Word in indescipherable code or make it one big swerve to confuse everyone. He's a God of order, not of chaos and confusion. I am convinced of this.

 

As for God's attitude change between OT and NT, I'm sure I have a book around here somewhere that tackles that. Allow me to find it and I'll see what kind of answer I may be able to provide.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I was pretty sure the attitude change comes from the fact that Jesus is God as a human. So now, God understands the temptations man encounters.

 

 

The point of this thread was to illustrate that not all of the Bible is correct for the sole reason that it is the Bible. There is a BASIC SPIRITUAL TRUTH that is correct, but when it comes to Science, these things were written for ancient man, and had to be interms he understood.

 

 

PS: It's good to have you back, SP. - Zsasz

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

True blind faith is a beautiful thing, in a way. Sometimes I envy those who can have that.

[Guest SP-1]

I fear ultimately we may have to agree to disagree, Zsasz. Which I can live with. And it's good to be back.

 

RatsMilk: I wish I had it, too. There are times when I simply must walk into the fire on faith alone but I also contend with a hunger for absolute knowledge. It can be as aggravating as it can be stimulating.

[Guest TheZsaszHorsemen]

I fear ultimately we may have to agree to disagree, Zsasz. Which I can live with. And it's good to be back.

 

RatsMilk: I wish I had it, too. There are times when I simply must walk into the fire on faith alone but I also contend with a hunger for absolute knowledge. It can be as aggravating as it can be stimulating.

You don't believe that a 2000 year old text, that was intended for an audience entirely different from us, contains *any* symbolism, metaphors, or human input that isn't meant to be read literally?

 

How do you read The Book of Revelation? The entire book is written in symbolic language so it's true meaning would be indecipherable to the Romans. (As was they style of all Apocolyptic literature.) As it stands, most biblical scholars believe that the events in Revelation stand for the Fall of The Roman Empire, the Dark Ages, and the Rise of Europe. There are *many* clues that lead us to believe that not the least of which is that the Dragon who is killed had seven heads and ten tails, and the Roman Empire at the time had seven provinces and ten terriotories.

[Guest SP-1]

I believe Revelation is written in code, yes, Paul pretty much had to in prison.

 

But I believe it's about the end times and the establishment of the New Kingdom and such. One passage that contains similarities to the number of certain things in Rome compared to a book dealing with the Throne Room, the Seals being opened, etc. doesn't quite add up for me.

 

There's also the fact that it appears to be a non-linear spiritual history lesson. The woman giving birth and the dragon appearing to try and interfere, the dragons defeat sweeping a third of the stars for heaven . . . it's believed to be an account of the timeless, eternal nature of the birth of Christ and Satan's interference/fall from Heaven. It then goes on and Paul had the end of Satan's meddling revealed to him and how God intended to wrap things up and put an end to this little mess.

 

Paul was in trouble for preaching the Gospel. Coding it merely because it was some kind of political naysaying doesn't fall in line with Paul's agenda to me, but coding it so that it could be smuggled out because God wanted it out there as a promise to keep in mind for the future for His people falls in line much better to me.

 

Are there parables and metaphors in the Bible? You bet. Jesus told parables and used them often to illustrate a point. They are there, but in no other form than where God specifically denotes that they are, in fact, what they are.

 

That's my take, anyway.