What do (or don't) you believe in the Bible?

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Is it a sign of sheer stupidity to question and/or challenge the dubious-but-established empiricism upon which heliocentricity is based? Though there will be reverse expectation, heliocentricity bears the total burden of proof.

My position is Geo until Helio is truly proven beyond speculative and projected mathematics, etc. I refuse to assign literary concessions for scripture unless/until there's better empirical proof to the contrary.

The entirety of scientific credibility largely rests upon heliocentricity for our earth system.

[Jemand]

Personally, I don't find anything in scripture difficult to believe. I wouldn't say that has always been the case, but the more I sought the Lord and His wisdom the easier it became. It eventually got to a point where my mind was renewed to a level that everything in scripture was easy to accept. Unbelief is a sign of a carnal, unrenewed mind. Jesus taught that the cure for a carnal, unrenewed mind is to deny self and seek. If you have a problem with unbelief, I would say that is an indication that you haven't been doing very much praying and fasting.

This paragraph reads almost as though it was written by a Jehovah’s Witness, except that a Jehovah’s Witness would not have co-mingled and confused the teachings of Jesus and Paul.

Jehovah’s Witnesses say that they believe the Bible in its entirety, but what they really believe is the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society’s interpretation of the Bible. It is not that different with today’s Christian fundamentalists—they also say that they believe the Bible in its entirety, but what they really believe is a Christian fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. Believing these interpretations of the Bible is very easy for both groups because both groups are taught that any other interpretation comes from man’s carnal wisdom rather than from the pure wisdom of God. Moreover, they are both taught that factual evidence that refutes their interpretation of the Bible is a ploy of Satan to place doubt in their minds. Therefore, they so vigorously and completely close their minds to the factual evidence that doubt regarding their interpretation of the Bible is not able to get in.

For Christians who know that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society is a pseudo-Christian cult and that today’s Christian fundamentalism teaches an oversimplified and inaccurate interpretation of the Bible, interpreting and understanding the Bible is a challenge. For example, they may not realize that Genesis 1-11 is written in a very different genre of literature than most of the rest of the Pentateuch, and they may not be aware that the concept of history at the time that the stories in Genesis 1-11 were composed was hugely different than the concept of history that we have today. Consequently, they may find it exceedingly difficult to reconcile the story of Noah’s ark with what they know to be true about the natural sciences. This difficulty, however, is not due to their having a “carnal” mind; it is due to their knowledge of science and their lack of knowledge concerning the genre of literature of Genesis 1-11.

Another example is the interpretation of Matt. 5:31-32,

31. “It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’;
32. but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

Today’s Christian fundamentalists nearly always interpret this verse to say that there is a biblical ground for divorce and remarriage—unchastity, but that is not at all what the passage is saying. In reality, it says that if a man divorces his wife, he causes her to commit adultery (based upon the culture of the day in which a divorced woman had to remarry in order have a place to live and food to eat)—unless she has already been sexually unfaithful to him. In that case, by divorcing her, he is not causing her to be an adulteress by remarrying because she has already committed adultery. Nonetheless, he is not to divorce her and marry another woman. Indeed, Luke, in his gospel, expressly says so,

Luke 16:18. “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”

Mark agrees,

Mark 10:10. In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again.
11. And He *said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her;
12. and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”

And so does Paul,

Rom. 7:1. Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?
2. For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.
3. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress though she is joined to another man.

1 Cor. 7:10. But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband
11. (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.

However, we have a problem when we turn to Matt. 19:9,

9. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

This verse, as we have it today in our Bibles, expressly contradicts Luke 16:18. Indeed, it is grammatically impossible to reconcile the contradiction in either the Greek text or our English renderings of it. Nonetheless, today’s Christian fundamentalists deny that there is a contradiction because they believe that there are no contradictions in the Bible. That was not the case, however, in the apostolic church—they knew that Jesus taught that divorce and remarriage was a sin in every case and they completely dismissed the contradictory phrase, “except for immorality,” in Matt. 19:9. Today, most scholars of the synoptic gospels believe as did the apostolic church, and attribute the contradictory phrase to a gloss added either to the words of Jesus by Matthew, or to a gloss added to Matthew’s gospel very early by a scribe copying Matthew’s original text or a very early copy it.

Do you believe that everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, or do you believe that there are exceptions?

Believing, with every ounce of one’s being, in Christ and what He accomplished for us on the cross is one thing; believing every verse in the Bible as we have it today is a very different thing. Furthermore, there are major differences among the very many English translations of the Bible that we have today, not to mention those translations in other languages. Many of these differences are due to conflicting readings in the original manuscripts; others are due to the renderings of those original manuscripts. Compare, for example, 1 Sam 10:27 in the English Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version,

10:27 But some worthless fellows said, “How can this man save us?” And they despised him and brought him no present. But he held his peace. (ESV)

10:27 But some worthless fellows said, “How can this man save us?” They despised him and brought him no present. But he held his peace.
Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead. (NRSV)

In the NRSV, we read seventy-one more words in four sentences (beginning with the word “Now” and ending with “Jabesh-gilead”) than we do in the ESV.

However, we do not have to get the tenth chapter of 1 Samuel before we find an important difference in that book of the Bible,

1 Sam. 1:11 And she vowed a vow and said, “O LORD of hosts, if you will indeed look on the affliction of your servant and remember me and not forget your servant, but will give to your servant a son, then I will give him to the LORD all the days of his life, and no razor shall touch his head.” (ESV)

1 Sam. 1:11 She made this vow: “O LORD of hosts, if only you will look on the misery of your servant, and remember me, and not forget your servant, but will give to your servant a male child, then I will set him before you as a nazirite until the day of his death. He shall drink neither wine nor intoxicants, and no razor shall touch his head.” (NRSV)

In both of these cases, the differences are due to conflicting readings in the original manuscripts. Do you believe what the ESV says in these verses, or do you believe what the NRSV says in these verses, or do you perhaps believe what the KJV says in these verses?

(All quotations from Scripture are from the NASB, 1995, unless otherwise noted.)

[TrustGzus]

Is it a sign of sheer stupidity to question and/or challenge the dubious-but-established empiricism upon which heliocentricity is based? Though there will be reverse expectation, heliocentricity bears the total burden of proof.

My position is Geo until Helio is truly proven beyond speculative and projected mathematics, etc. I refuse to assign literary concessions for scripture unless/until there's better empirical proof to the contrary.

The entirety of scientific credibility largely rests upon heliocentricity for our earth system.

What are your thoughts about astronomers, physicists and astro-physicists who also hold to inerrancy yet disagree with you? They have a high view of the Bible and their field of study is in areas that deal with geocentrism v. heliocentrism. It seems Christians like that are hard to ignore. Some have degrees in both biblical fields and scientific fields.

[steelcurtain76]

Either the Bible is 100% valid in it's content and that includes the events that happened just as they are written...or it's just a book full fairytales and/or myths.

It can't be both ways. If it is the latter, who is to say what is a factual story and what is a feel good story just made up to relay a greater message. If the content is not factual, how can I believe anything the Bible says as true...including the resurrection.

2 Timothy 3:16 is the answer for me.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

What are your thoughts about astronomers, physicists and astro-physicists who also hold to inerrancy yet disagree with you? They have a high view of the Bible and their field of study is in areas that deal with geocentrism v. heliocentrism. It seems Christians like that are hard to ignore. Some have degrees in both biblical fields and scientific fields.

My thoughts are that they affirm the same fundamental scientific hypotheses I and most others have; and they have made the same literary concessions of scripture that I and others have.

It's that simple. Literary concessions WITHIN historical narrative have to be made for heliocentricity. I and the vast majority have done that for at least several centuries. After research and correspondence with a PhD acquaintance and others, I no longer accept the baseline for many things, including telescope optics. I haven't undertaken this lightly. This ain't kindergarten.

Those who have and do make such literary concessions of scripture are free to do so. I have no ill will toward or judgement of those who retain belief in heliocentricity. I am simply compelled to set secular science's hypotheses and declarations aside to confirm actual truth; and the more I've done that, the more disturbingly unconvincing the speculative scientific empiricism becomes.

[TrustGzus]

My thoughts are that they affirm the same fundamental scientific hypotheses I and most others have; and they have made the same literary concessions of scripture that I and others have.

It's that simple. Literary concessions WITHIN historical narrative have to be made for heliocentricity. I and the vast majority have done that for at least several centuries. After research and correspondence with a PhD acquaintance and others, I no longer accept the baseline for many things, including telescope optics. I haven't undertaken this lightly. This ain't kindergarten.

Those who have and do make such literary concessions of scripture are free to do so. I have no ill will toward or judgement of those who retain belief in heliocentricity. I am simply compelled to set secular science's hypotheses and declarations aside to confirm actual truth; and the more I've done that, the more disturbingly unconvincing the speculative scientific empiricism becomes.

Interesting. Why do you call science secular? Science really was grounded by Christians. Do you think the scientific principle is unsound? I don't see science really as a secular field.

[IMINXTC]

Originally Posted by IMINXTC

No conflict exists between the Bible and science when one arbitrarily dismisses the Biblical account as simply sublime poetry or mythology, reducing its truths to mere parabolic symbols, or transposing objective meaning and narrative into mere subjective religious attitude or existential response.

And no conflict occurs when one says that science's declarations cannot jeopardize the emotional or volitional implications of scriptural teaching.

Actually these unsatisfactory options buy peace between science and religion by surrendering the very heart of the Christian faith.

How do these options surrender the "very heart of the Christian Faith"?

By surrendering the total veracity of the written word, as delivered, over to the omnicompetence of scientism for interpretation, approval and teaching. By placing the so-called scientist above the Bible as written, transmitted and central to the faith.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Interesting. Why do you call science secular?

Because of the prevailing post-17th century Philosophy of Science. Science begins with personal and collective philosophy(ies).

Science really was grounded by Christians.

Well... Christians have long participated and been instrumental in many ways. There were a number of ancient astronomical cultures preceeding and contemporary to the Abrahamic faith, much less modern Catholicism/Protestantism.

Do you think the scientific principle is unsound?

I'd say, without being obtuse or evasive, that question is much too broad and unfocused. The underlying truth I had been sorta grappling with for a few years was the Philosophy of Science contrasted with the Sciences themselves. I'm not impugning anyone's intentions, sincerity, or credibility. Red shift is whatever it's made to be. The mathematics are impossible to substantiate and confirm. I question the core empiricism, partly because I know its source.

I don't see science really as a secular field.

Do you see Science as a sacred field? There's a huge key difference in understanding the Philosophy and History of Science as distinct from Science itself.

Anthropomorphic Global Warming is an example of Science driven by agenda rather than truly objective empiricism.

[Jemand]

Either the Bible is 100% valid in it's content and that includes the events that happened just as they are written...or it's just a book full fairytales and/or myths.

This is not true; there are very many other possibilities, some of which have already been mentioned in this thread.

It can't be both ways.

It does not have to be in order to be divinely inspired Scripture.

2 Timothy 3:16 is the answer for me.

How do you know that what you read in 2 Timothy 3:16 is anything other than Paul’s personal and erroneous opinion? How do you even know that he even wrote 2 Timothy? Very many prominent scholars specializing in the Pastoral Epistles believe that all three of the Pastoral Epistles are pseudoepigraphic literature—and they base that belief upon substantial evidence. Should our faith in God and the Bible that He has given to us be based upon a claim for divine authorship when that claim may not be true?

Assuming for a moment that Paul was the author of 2 Timothy (which I personally believe to be the case), he wrote those words hundreds of years before the Church even had the concept of a New Testament or a second canon of Scripture. Are we to believe that the Apostle Paul was thinking of his own writings or any of the other writings in our New Testament when he used the word “Scripture” in writing to Timothy?

If my faith in the divine inspiration of the Bible was dependent upon 2 Timothy 3:16, that faith would be a whole lot closer to presumption than to faith.

[IMINXTC]

How do you know that what you read in 2 Timothy 3:16 is anything other than Paul’s personal and erroneous opinion? How do you even know that he even wrote 2 Timothy? Very many prominent scholars specializing in the Pastoral Epistles believe that all three of the Pastoral Epistles are pseudoepigraphic literature—and they base that belief upon substantial evidence. Should our faith in God and the Bible that He has given to us be based upon a claim for divine authorship when that claim may not be true?

So, for the record, you don't necessarily hold to the inspiration and inerrency of the entire New Testament? What you seem to be saying here.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Some of us haven't blindly accepted canonized scripture without scrutiny of research and scholarship, including textual traditions and any number of areas of textual criticism. From a historical perspective, I could accept a few other writings for inclusion if there was more integrity in preservation and translation, etc. I hold some of the Apocrypha in high esteem, and I've copiously read Pseudapigrapha and every Ante-Nicene writing extant.

I see no validity for excluding any existing canon; nor do I feel compelled to include any, even though some other writings are quality content and valuable support.

[Jemand]

So, for the record, you don't necessarily hold to the inspiration and inerrency of the entire New Testament?" What you seem to be saying here.

I believe in the divine inspiration of the New Testament, but 2 Tim. 3:16 does not prove that the New Testament is divinely inspired.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I believe in the divine inspiration of the New Testament, but 2 Tim. 3:16 does not prove that the New Testament is divinely inspired.

Okay, that makes sense. In what manner and to what degree was the NT inspired, IYO?

[TrustGzus]

Do you see Science as a sacred field?

Not at all. I look at it in a similar way as I do Christians applying hermeneutics to the biblical text. Fallible people using good processes, but not always in a good way, that sometimes results in understanding truth and sometimes misses the mark.

There's a huge key difference in understanding the Philosophy and History of Science as distinct from Science itself.

Agreed. I enjoy studying philosophy. So I agree Philosophy of Science, History of Science, and Science proper are very different fields. I don't see what point you are trying to make with this comment.

Anthropomorphic Global Warming is an example of Science driven by agenda rather than truly objective empiricism.

I agree with that. Anthropomorphic Global Warming is also nowhere near as accepted as things such as heliocentrism, nor does it have the long and accepted history of heliocentrism. Seems a bit of an apples-and-oranges thing in regard to the topic of heliocentrism.

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Not at all. I look at it in a similar way as I do Christians applying hermeneutics to the biblical text. Fallible people using good processes, but not always in a good way, that sometimes results in understanding truth and sometimes misses the mark.

I don't think I disagree with this.

Agreed. I enjoy studying philosophy. So I agree Philosophy of Science, History of Science, and Science proper are very different fields. I don't see what point you are trying to make with this comment.

History of Science shows it is secular (maybe not non-religious, especially in more ancient times; but not founded by Christians). I thought that was your challenge.

Philosophy of Science drives Science itself by agenda. I'm aware of subversion and coercion that you or others might dismiss. There are nany interlocking puzzle pieces, and Science is the fulcrum for the lever. Heliocentricity is leveraged.

I agree with that. Anthropomorphic Global Warming is also nowhere near as accepted as things such as heliocentrism, nor does it have the history to back it up. Seems a bit of an apples-and-oranges thing in regard to the topic of heliocentrism.

It was an example rather than a comparison. History is but another outlet for Philosophy.


I originally made a passing statement. I in no way expect agreement. I've just tried to honestly explain my position of Geo until Helio is presented by more substantial means than it historically has been and currently still is... empirically.