Is the bible reliable?

More detail to offer? What you mean to say is that your source has excuses to make. If scripture were divinely inspired and inerrant, then Matthew would have left nothing out, and Luke would not have made the colossal blunder of voiding his own geneological pretense by making Hey-Zeus the son of god, rather than the son of Joseph, which shoots the whole "descended from King David" claptrap right in the ass.

Pathetic . . .

More detail to offer? What you mean to say is that your source has excuses to make. If scripture were divinely inspired and inerrant, then Matthew would have left nothing out,

and Luke would not have made the colossal blunder of voiding his own geneological pretense by making Hey-Zeus the son of god, rather than the son of Joseph, which shoots the whole "descended from King David" claptrap ........

Is the bible reliable?

Neo, I'm sorry to bust in on your thread like this, but I have to ask a question that's buggin me... I know a lot of the regulars are posting here right now so I thought it might be a good place to ask.

Has anyone seen, heard from, or talked to CI?

Umm... if you don't know... carry on! Pretend I'm not even here! LOL

sozobe wrote:

Oh good grief.

It even says "Day", as opposed to "Night". What light differentiates day from night?

Perhaps Moses, who penned the text, understood that the luminaries were not discernable at the earlier time because of heavy water vapor in the expanse.

sozobe wrote:

Oh good grief.

It even says "Day", as opposed to "Night". What light differentiates day from night?

But it was not stated that there was a separation of day and night until the sun was created. Therefore implying a difference between the light that came when God said let "there be light" and the sun to separate the night from the day.

The whole point is that it is not God that is ambiguous. It is not the Word of God that is ambiguous. I don't know why Neo does not believe in (accept, whatever the word is) in hell or not. I have not had that discussion with him. I only know that he has a different understanding than I do.

The main message is the same no matter what. God is love. God loves us. God wants us to love Him. God wants us to love each other. I don't see what is so hard about understanding that BASIC message. :wink:

mesquite wrote:

Yes, that is what I said, that I take it seriously. I did not say that voting should be restricted to non believers.

Mesquite,

Then why are you so miffed about what my vote would be?

An assumption on your part, not evidence of any contradiction. 'If I was God and I wanted people to write the Bible, I woulda......'

Inspiration does not require the inclusion of any and every fact or detail. It only requires that the facts which are included are accurate.

Paul wrote in 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness . . .

My take on this is the entire bible is a verifiably integrated whole. The OT agrees with the NT and letters of Paul agree with the Gospels.

I am somewhat surprised that many believers either disagree with this proposition or are unable to explain their belief. So I welcome volleys from both sides.

As MA once said, "Let's duke it out!"

...........Of course, i did not contend that the contradiction is based in the question of whether or not scripture is inerrant--that is not a proposition i advance........

If scripture were divinely inspired and inerrant, then Matthew would have left nothing out

hephzibah wrote:

sozobe wrote:

Oh good grief.

It even says "Day", as opposed to "Night". What light differentiates day from night?

But it was not stated that there was a separation of day and night until the sun was created. Therefore implying a difference between the light that came when God said let "there be light" and the sun to separate the night from the day.

Huh? I believe Soz was referring to this, right in the part about light being created on the first day:

Gen 1:3-5
3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.

So, there were day and night after the first day, but only a sun after the fourth?

neologist wrote:

sozobe wrote:

Oh good grief.

It even says "Day", as opposed to "Night". What light differentiates day from night?

Perhaps Moses, who penned the text, understood that the luminaries were not discernable at the earlier time because of heavy water vapor in the expanse.

So basically, you state that "the entire bible is a verifiably integrated whole", that is, "the OT agrees with the NT and letters of Paul agree with the Gospels"; and to argue how this is so, when confronted with a contradiction in the texts, you "prove" how they are, still, consistent by making assumptions about what the author may have meant but did not specify.

Did I get that correct? Sounds pretty shaky to me ...

(Havent read beyond the above post yet)

Setanta wrote:

...........Of course, i did not contend that the contradiction is based in the question of whether or not scripture is inerrant--that is not a proposition i advance........

Really?

Setanta wrote:

If scripture were divinely inspired and inerrant, then Matthew would have left nothing out

When you make up your mind which way you want to argue it, then let me know.