By the fact that both Paul and Christ use Genesis two in their teachings. If it wasn't really true, it wouldn't be a foundational principle to one's teaching.
Further, in Romans 5, Paul addresses the fall of man, as recorded in Genesis.
Paul taught that Christ was the creator of all things. Is this true or not?
To what extent is the Bible infallible and inerrant?
Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Plain Old Bill, Nov 29, 2004.
Page 3 of 18
-
-
-
Sorry craig, I don't think fantasy belongs in this section.
Is Christ the direct creator of all things or not?
Did the fall of man happen just like Scripture said or not?
Did Genesis 2:24 actually happen just like the Scripture said? Jesus said, "It was not so from the BEGINNING." -
I am curious as to exactly what Ute & Craigbythe sea actually do believe. The question is based on many entries made by both of them.
-
-
God is not governed by time as we are but at the same time, He had no particular reason to tell Moses that creation occurred in six days if it actually did not. Think about it. Moses would have been just as receptive to God's Word if He had alluded to evolution or even a very old earth.
God, knowing the future, was under no constraint to describe creation in a way that contradicts what modern science "knows" occurred. According to the Bible, God created the sun and stars after He created plants. -
-
-
The only reason I can think of that you would declare this impossible is that you don't think God is capable of it.
According to God's purposes, He required the earth and universe to be as they have been for the past 6000-10000 years. God did not require billions of years to accomplish this task. Just because something appears old to you does not mean it is old. The problem can be your perception as easily as the stated facts of the Bible. -
-
I think we're getting off topic here. I don't think the poster of the OP intended for this to become (yet another) creation/evolution debate.
-
Christian theology excludes evolution, theistic or otherwise.
Sin entered the world through Adam. -
-
-
It seems to me that alot of us are afraid that if we reconsider any traditional doctrine that we'll soon be giving away the whole farm!
Science SUGGESTS earth is old. If this were not so then why do the VAST MAJORITY of scientists (not apologists with DMins) believe this to be so?
We can see by reading Genesis one that the intent was not tom describe things scientifically - so what's the big fuss?
Seeing the earth as old and the account as nonliteral does not mean Adam didn't exist or that Christianity is wash!
We're willing to accept scientific knowledge in all other areas except when it calls into question one of our pet traditional doctrines.
Do you need to PROVE scientifically that God exists? I don't!! -
Chuckles, I would actually agree that Gen. 1 isn't supposed to be scientific. It is supposed to be historical fact though. That is what you are calling into question.
-
-
The parables of Christ are good examples of something that is not factual, but is true. When Jesus said that if a body part offends us, we should cut it off, this is not a literally factual statement, but is true. If it were factual, there would be a lot of Christian amputees.
Men gave contradicting facts. God face uncontradicting truth. Men wrote scripture. God inspired it. Two completely different things.
Because the facts in question have nothing to do with the truth contained in the message, as I stated earlier and gave examples to.
No, not at all. Minor discremancy in facts does not compromise the truth contained therein. Clearly, here in your replies, you're having a problem discerning between the two.
Men wrote scritpure and God inspiring it are two different things? How? :confused: :confused: Please explain!
Your last example is not good, either. A true story with wrong details shows that some the facts are wrong and/or that the story is not completely true. If I say that 2 robbers stole $5,000 and a TV and it turns out they stole $5,000 and a car, then the story is partially wrong, or it's partially true but has some wrong facts.
You still have not made your case that something can be true with wrong facts, or that God's inspired words can be true but have wrong facts.
What you seem to be saying is that the Bible is not totally true.
As far as the sign posted above Jesus' head, check out When Critics Ask by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe. On p. 362 they tackle this issue. I don't have time to write it all out, but briefly, they say that Jn 19.20 points out that the signs were written in 3 languages (Greek, Hebrew, and Latin). So differences could have come from the way the different languages phrased it. "King of the Jews" is given in all 4 gospels. Also, it is possible that each gospel is giving only part of what is on the sign: "This is Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews." The accounts are complementary, not contradictory. -
Also, when Jesus told parables, people knew they were allegories. They were not lies, they were not factually incorrect. They were parables.
This still does not show your case that the Bible has truth but wrong facts unless this is how you interpret facts. -
First I believe the Bible is true . Second I don't think science or anything else has caught up with the Bible.We don't have our science right , if we did we would not be making new scientific discoveries all of the time. We don't have our theology right (most of us anyhow)or there would'nt be so many views.
Page 3 of 18