Featured What Does "Inspired" Mean, Relative to the Bible?

Yeshua you're repeating yourself.

You just asked this and I answered you. Read it again.

Take a look at Isaiah 38:8 in the King James Version and tell me. If you check the Hebrew words, you will find the KJV is dead on in the translations of the words. Go look and report back.

 

You need to read on the subjects

In fact, the age of the Universe being approximately 13.7 billion years old has been established quite well. The finding is based on the apparent size of the Universe - which gives a result, and the speed of expansion of the Universe, which gives a result in accord with the size.

Global warming? Partisan political garbage. Evolutionary processes? There's a lot of evidence for it; but it's by no means completely figured yet. But you - YOU - need to look at these matters on your own and not take someone else's word for it. God won't mind you looking and finding out things; it's not like you're going to discover some secret He's hiding behind the curtain.

Our God does NOT encourage ignorance and fear.

 

Gas?

Bless you, my son; on a good day, I could loft the Hindenburg.

You'll have to forgive me, but this sounds like one of those questions where the wording is given 'special meaning'; and a 'Yes' or 'No' can be misconstrued. But I'll answer your question as I mean it.

The Bible is absolutely reliable - correct, accurate, inspired and so forth - in terms of what it relates about God Himself, about the relationship between God and the Universe, between God and man, and about what God desires and accomplished to have the relationship between God and man on God's terms.

Further, the Bible is absolutely reliable - correct, accurate, inspired and so forth - in terms of historical events. With the one obvious gaffe in Isaiah 38:8 - which is completely understandable due to the ignorance of the time. There are also some questions about names of individuals along the way. (For instance, Moses' father in law is identified as Jethro, priest of Midian (Exodus 2 and 18); in Numbers 10 Moses' father in law is identified as Raguel (Reuel in modern translations) the Midianite. I suppose Moses could have had two fathers in law, but I've never heard that mentioned. Nor have I ever heard of Moses having more than one wife. In the O.T. history, there are several places where the same person is identified by more than one name. It is confusing to some degree, but the answer may be as simple as you are both "Deacon" and "Rob", depending on where one met you. And it does not compromise the main message a bit.

I must make a note here: The Bible's correctness, accurateness, inspiredness and so forthness DOES NOT mean man's understanding of all of it is correct. Blindingly obvious is the mistake between Galileo and the 'Bible says' faction. More immediately, I don't think ANYONE really understands all of Revelation and the "End Times". (Other than it will arrive when the Lord is ready.)

Do I subscribe to the idea that all the autographs are without any flaw by modern standards? I do not believe they have to be. They are 'perfect', which means 'complete'; all the message God wants us to have is there and available. As I've said in other places, it's a silly argument at best, because we do NOT have access to any 'original' manuscripts - autographs - of the Bible texts.

I know that offends some folks. That actually grieves me, but I find it more important to follow the directions of God than the dictates of men. This will offend some folks even more, but I've prayed over the matter on numerous occasions and the Lord hasn't seen fit to correct me - as He has in other matters. So even if I'm wrong, God continues to love me and use me in His service. And most of the Christian believers who know me - including my 'odd' ideas - tend to think I'm 'passable' at least.

 

You need to see this yourself

Have you read the passage? (It takes up about five or six verses in Isaiah 38.) I think it to be remarkably self-evident, when viewed from a current perspective.

If you have read it, allow me to remind you God cannot ever be ignorant. Or surprised, for that matter.

 

Yeshua, this comment was made regarding Isaiah 38 and nothing else.

If you don't want to read the passage and make meaningful commentary, then don't. But do try to pay attention to what is being discussed.

And try to understand this: I have answered your questions - your repeated and persistent questions - several times. I cannot enable you to comprehend. In other words, don't blame me if you cannot understand.

 

JBH28, John, others as interested...

I should think it obvious, the ignorance of the writers regarding the organization of the solar system. And I suppose the same ignorance of the 'Bible said' faction following.

If one reads Isaiah 38:8(b) it says (KJV) "... So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down."

The Sun moved back - and that is what the Hebrew word translated 'returned' means, 'moved back'. This is - according to the 'the Bible says' group who arrested Galileo - proof positive the Sun orbits the Earth. The Bible says '... the sun returned...' That's a literal statement and understanding.

Another section which plays into this is Joshua 10 where the Bible records '... the sun stood still in the midst of heaven...' Well, obviously the Sun couldn't 'stand still' unless it was moving around the Earth, right? Again, proof positive the Sun orbits the Earth. At least according to the 'the Bible says' faction.

If the Lord inspired, revealed and directed this be recorded, we may safely believe it is NOT a fraudulent episode or fairy tale. However, when the people writing it recorded it, they did so by writing exactly what they saw, colored by their limited understanding of how the solar system works. So let no one mistake this, I am not suggesting for a moment these witnessed events did not take place. Yeshua, read that sentence several times, I will not answer any questions from you about it. I am stating the obvious, the Sun does not orbit the Earth.

What I am saying is these passages gave rise to some serious misunderstanding later, as the 'Bible said' faction read them 'literally' and concluded - as they already thought - the Sun orbits the Earth. From that, Nikky the Pollack and Galileo were both heretics as they denied the 'literal' words of the Bible. QED.

With that, consider these questions and answer them at least to yourself:

1. Does the Sun orbit the Earth, or the Earth orbit the Sun?
2. Has that arrangement changed since the writing of Joshua and Isaiah?
3. If the Sun does not orbit the Earth, why did God allow the Bible to read that way? (This is the important question.)

 

Sorry I brought it up.

Anything I might say from here would simply be taken as offensive. I pointed it out, but I cannot force understanding. I'm done with it.

 

Other miracles

Yes, I do.

There are several 'scientific' explanations for some of these events - ranging from the plausible to the ridiculous. Since God is the one who designed and established all laws of nature, I do not find the idea that God used 'nature' in His dealings with man to be either impossible, unlikely or heretical.