How well do you believe the Bible?
 

No, I'm not a "Bible Thumper". I'm just curious how many people take the Bible as being 100% accurate, with no "hits", no "runs", and no "errors". In any given week, I can turn on the CB and get the sermon I missed on Sunday from someone that seems to be able to quote book and verse far better than I can.

In the past, we've had some lively discussions about it, and I don't know if those members are still active on the board or not. If they are, I would welcome them to join in here.

It was because of those past discussions that I began research into the Bible and the Archeology that supports events portrayed in the Bible. I've been finding errors. And, not just a few of them.

The flood of Noah did not happen when it is said to have happened in the Bible. In fact, it happened about 500 years earlier. And, Noah was not his name. In fact, Noah was his title. His name was Gilgamesh. There were errors in translating the text from Sumarian to Arameic. (Didn't look up the spelling, so if you have the correct spelling, by all means, correct me.) Bu t, the evidence of the flood is in the form of clay deposits near the tops of mountains that could only have been put there by flood waters that would have covered the mountains.

In Exodus, the plagues on Egypt were natural events. Locusts migrate over Egypt twice each year. But, when there is an inversion layer and the upper air is cold, they come down to earth and become a plague. It's happened many times since Moses's day, and perhaps, before as well. The waters of the river runing red came from a valcanic event. In what amounts to core samples taken from the sediment at the bottom of the river, they have found evidence of valcanic chemicals that would have turned the river red, killed every living thing in the water, and would have killed anything that drank the water. Highly toxic. It's also happened in about two other locations around the world in the last fifty years. Another completely natural event.

The death of Egypt's first-born... Another volcanic event. In the last twenty five years, there have been several volcanos that have spewed out CO2 gas in large quantities, and in at least one of these, hundreds of people and thousands of cattle were killed. Egyptian custom also lent a hand. Egypt's first-born slept in a place of honor on the ground floor while siblings slept on the roof. Anyone sleeping on the ground floor died. The Hebrews, however, put lamb's blood around the doors and windows. That acted as a caulking to keep the CO2 gas out, and they suffered no loses.

The parting of the Red Sea... Looks like the waters of the Red Sea were NEVER parted. While it is true that from the top of what we know of as Mount Sinai, you can see the Promised Land, that was not called Mount Sinai in Moses's day. Some of the requirements to be the right mountain are, a natural amphitheater that overlooks a platue capable of holding thousands of people. Mount Sinai does not have this anywhere on it. At the top, there needs to be evidence of water. Again, absent. It also has no vegetation for a burning bush.

However, in the Arameic writing, Red Sea, and "Reed Sea" are spelled exactly the same. And, about 70 miles to the north of what we know of, today, as Mount Sinai, is another mountain. From the top, you can also see the Promised Land. At the top, there is evidence of water. It has a natural amphitheater and a very large platue. It does have some vegetation, and there are a few bushes. But archeology discovered two more things about it.

Where did Moses die, and what was his final resting place?

On top of the mountain 70 miles north of Mount Sinai, there are two graves that date back to about the time of Exodus. But, it does not stop there.

In the Reed Sea, there is evidence of a geological event that would have thrust the sea floor above water level. A land-bridge for the Hebrews to cross. When the Egyptian army was persuing, another event would have put the sea floor back down near it's original level, and a tsunami would have drowned the army. Guess what. In the sediment at the bottom of the Reed Sea, there is evidence of the Egyptian Army.

All of these things were natural events. But the errors in the Bible came from translating them into other languages. And, it's safe to assume that things which were to have been said may also have been misquoted in our text.

I was in fact a christian counselor for quite a few years, and I studied the bible to the point of actually learning ancient greek and hebrew (not in a speakable way, but in a way as to study). You are right that all errors found are simply because of translation. If you study the bible in the original ancient languages, the meanings come across much differently then they do in english. One of the main reasons for this is that the english language is very simplified, I.E. much of the meaning comes from the context of what is said, where a language such as greek or hebrew the meaning is direct and exact. A good example of this is just the new testament alone, in english is made up of a vocabulary of 5000 words, whereis the original greek is 15,000 words. Greek language has so many more words, because they don't use words like 'love' whose meaning is derived from context. Example would be in the bible, the word 'love' is used in many places, but in the original greek there are 3 different words with 3 different meanings all together, but all translate into english as love. I will give a good example, Jesus asked peter if he 'loved' him 3 times, the first 2 times he pretty much said, "I don't understand' and on the 3rd time, he said yes. There is a good reason for this, and it doesn't make sense unless you know that the first 2 times Jesus asked him the question, it was with the word agapi, which means Gods Love, which no human is capable of without the spirit, Peter did not understand, because to him he didn't know or think he was capable of agapi love, the 3rd time Jesus asked, he asked with the word philos, which means brotherly or friendly love, and he replied yes. By the way, this is how the city of Philadelphia got it's name, Philos meaning brotherly love, Philadelphia.

As far as your mentioning scientific explanations for biblical events, who is to say God did not do it via those methods? A lot of people today ask the question, "If God did all of these fantastic things in biblical days, how come he does not do it today?" Well he does, only difference is today we have 'science', in Noah's day, they didn't understand the concepts of poisonous gas from volcanos, so to them it is a fantastic feat only God could perform, today science understands these things, and people put their faith into 'science' instead of the One that actually designed the volcano, and controls its workings via a natural set of laws He created.

Brings up another point, a lot of Christians and non-christians, get hung up on the Science vs Faith/Religion thing, I have tried to explain to Christians espially, that there is nothing wrong with science, it is simply a way to explain how God orchestrates the natural order he created, just that sometimes scientists go in the wrong direction with their theories.

Also by the way, I too studied the time line. Noah lived for something like 800 years. The timeline from Adam to Noah is documented in the bible, however with Noah there is a 400 year gap that is not explained. Simply because it gives when he was born, and when he died, however it does not give his age at the time of the flood. So therefor the flood happened somewhere within a 400 year spread of his life. I came about this because I was trying to figure out the actual age of the Earth, but the buck stops at Noah, with a 400 year gap! If I remember correctly I came to the conclusion that from Adam until now, it has been between 8000 to 10000 years, and that is not just based on biblical knowledge alone, but is also based on the oldest known civilizations in history and their timelines.

I love discussing theology and biblical science, but I hate debating with people whom just want to try to disprove the bible on some point.

This was exactly my point. While they were all natural events, it's the TIMING. To have one happen exactly on time, ok. Two? Well, maybe. But, three or more? The more there were, the more odds are against being chance. And, who among us has the ability to control these things?
There seems to be a general agreement between Creationists that the earth was created 40,000 BC. The oldest writing ever found, the oldest text ever found by archeology, was dated at 38,000 BC and appears to be Hindu. Slimland, when we were discussing ancient text (before his wife had a crisis with cancer), said the oldest Hebrew test he found was 26,000 or 28,000 BC. The Dead-Sea Scrolls are believed to be copies of still earlier text that may not have survived. And, it may or may not be a translation of that earlier text as well. If we are able to point to errors in translation, and information that has been in error, such as Mount Sinai, Then we must also allow for errors in translating and copying still earlier text as well.

My arguement with Slimland was with the 7 days of Creation. Creationists take a day as a hard and fast rule of 24 hours. But, due to human error in translation and perhaps errors in copying, I suggest that a "day" of creation should be taken as a relative term. A period of time. And, that period of time could well exceed the 24 hour limit by tens of thousands of years. (Talk about having a "long day".) In that case, one of GOD's days could well be 78 million years long, and evolution would become an instrument of GOD's handi-work. It would also mean that Creationists and Evolutionists no longer have anything to fight about and could begin to expend their energies working together.

I don't have any interest in disproving the Bible. More so, an interest in explaining why the difference between science and the Bible. Scientific data does not change. Nature is reasonably constant, but the Bible, as we have it today, is subject to human error. While the "ORIGINAL BIBLE TEXT" may have been entirely accurate, we don't have it. And, what we do have, may have been translated and copied a number of times. How many errors have been introduced with this? Does this make the Bible wrong? Absolutely not. Just not quite as accurate as many would have us believe.

If GOD used natural events during Exodus, isn't it also possible that in creating man, he may have also guided natural events to do his will? ie Evolution?

As a geologist and a creationist, you can imagine that I have had many questions cross my mind. The way I have come to believe, regarding the age of the earth, is this:

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day."

How long was that first day? God only knows. One day as is a thousand years to him. Or maybe longer? Time could not be measured until the sun was created...and then the moon. It could have been a million years long...or three! Time means nothing to God. Only schedule....

I don't question the Bible much anymore. I don't have the knowledge or the time. Although I am so curious about a lot of things, my concern is to save my butt and the butts of my kids...so I focus on what is ahead and not what is behind. I LOVE the earth, it a beautiful and marvelous creation...so dynamic. I also believe that so many events in the Bible can be explained scientifically, even getting water out of rocks! God must LOVE science...can you inagine understanding science the way He does? TO be able to create life and see it evolve and to know what is going to be the final outcome of every single creature? I don't question him. I don't believe everything I hear (or read), either. I think that everything is just as it should be and it goes pretty much in line with "prophesy". That is pretty scary to me. But I can't imagine life without faith in a higher power. I'm sure a lot of people can...but I can't. My business is the "now" and although I yearn to be able to study more about about the BIble, and question, and answer, and understand...my time is spent doing other things that are necessary to my "now". So, my answer for me is...I have faith in the jist of the Bible and choose not to question it - I am so intensely curious and know that any search for the "truth" would detract from my responsiblities, given what little free time I have already. But, I LOVE to read what everyone writes and know what they think. I believe that I can learn something new everyday and that, by being a by-stander to any discussion here, I could get an answer to a question I may have been pondering for quite some time.

So...carry on. I'll be open to learning something....but, please don't make me have more questions!!!!!

I do NOT believe in evolution in any shape or form. There is no single scientific evidence to support evolution, all they come up with is species they say are 'links' in the evolutionary chain, which is no way shape or form proves evolution. Every fossil ever found of a creature that still exists today, is unchanged from the modern species. There was also a prominate Christian scientist / archeologist who had found fossilized foot prints of dinasaours and man walking side by side!

You have a good point too about the 'day' thing, in the original language, the word that is translated to day, does not actually mean day as we think. It is a word that just means a length of time.

Bloo, it only takes a few seconds to ask a question ;)

But, if we get Hobo in here, it will take her two weeks to read the answer.:clap:
This may be just a bit less than accurate. Neanderthal, for example, did have speech, and RED HAIR, not black as normally depicted. I don't have any idea just how they did it, but they have done some genetic and DNA testing on Neanderthal remains. The same gene that gives us the ability to speak is also in Neanderthal. And, the same "flawed gene" that gives some of us red hair is also in Neanderthal. Also, there is absolutely no evidence of Homo Sapien until 6,000 BC. Which says that the Hebrew faith began in a Neanderthal society. It reeks havoc with many of our preceptions.

I havent read the other posts.. but.. if the bible is the word of god why is it revised? I personally believe that if it was all written by man it can't all be true.

If a translation of the bible is called 'revised' it just means they reworded it to try to better match the original language. There are two types of translations, word for word, which translate the bible from the original languages to the closest possible words in english, the most famous, and consequently one of the most flawed translations, the king james, is one such type. Then there are what are called thought for thought translations, which take the meaning of what the original language is saying, and translates it into an English phrase that conveys that meaning, not word for word, but expresses the original meaning. A good example of that type of translation is The Message, or the Amplified Bible. The Message is probably one of the easiest to read translations EVER made, it is like reading a novel :). The amplified is a good study translation, because it expands on meanings of words and phrases inline with the sentence, but is a poor choice for reading aloud or casually.

Personally I always liked the New Living Translation for casual reading, it is an easy to read word for word translation, and fairly accurate.

Do some scientific research on DNA, you will find almost all living creatures share near identical DNA. Apes are only off from us by 2%, but in the world of DNA 2% is a huge difference.