Question for those who believe the Bible has no error

[formergothardite]

When I was growing up and was taught that the Bible was literally true, every single word of it, things like the two different versions of the creation story were never, ever pointed out and I honestly didn't even realize they were in there until recently.

So since I know that there are members here who believe the Bible has no error and has no mistakes, how do you explain that?

In Gen. 1:25-27 it shows humans being made after all the animals and man and women being created at the same time, both in the image of God.

But in Gen. 2:18-22 It shows God making man, saw that it wasn't good for him to be alone and THEN made all the animals to be companions. But none of the animals were good companions, so God then made woman out of man.

But then in Mark 10:6 Jesus said that from the very beginning of creation God made them male and female, so it seems like Jesus followed the first version and not the second.

So how is this explained if you believe the Bible is totally true? Both cannot be true.

[daisyjane1234]

The only way it can be explained is if one suspends reason. If you approach the Bible with any kind of critical eye then it doesn't hold up to the infallability assumption at all. Since most fundies suspend reason and logic in pretty much all areas of their faith it works. Their explanation is that it can't be explained because it is God and God can't be explained. But then they go on to anthropomorphize God and place all sorts of limits on this Divine being to explain God (making God a man is a BIG limit!).

The Bible was written by dozens of people over hundreds, even thousands, of years. It was redacted by dozens more, translated by who knows how many (men, for the most part). And then you have the influence of the RC church (the only church for the foundational years of Christianity) with its patriarchal, heirarchical etc. views which supressed the voices of woman and pretty much anyone who disagreed with their particular brand of theology. They decided what was canon and threw out dissenting views such as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene etc.

One cannot read the Bible as a single document with one Divinely inspired author. It doesn't work because that wasn't how the Bible was written and was NEVER how the Bible was meant to be read. It is a complex book requiring some pretty sophisticated exegesis to really understand. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't all read and enjoy the Bible, just that it can VERY easily be abused in the hands of controlling, patriarchal, simple-minded people.

Okay...rant over!! :roll:

[salsa]

different versions of the flood story, too. The Gospels are all slightly different, having Jesus' actions placed in different orders and not all include all of the stories.

eta: this example - with the multiplication of loaves, how many did they start with and was it 5,000 or 4,000 that were fed?

Did Jesus preach his famous sermon from the mountain or the plain?

[Conuly]

I asked that about Genesis once and was told that obviously the first one had to do with the world and the second one with the Garden of Eden, and that anybody who read the Bible and wasn't a total idiot could see that.

My response to this can be summed up in the phrase "What a maroon!"

[salsa]

I had one claim that the devil put the dinosaur bones in the earth to trick us into doubting creation.

[treemom]

I had one claim that the devil put the dinosaur bones in the earth to trick us into doubting creation.

The fallibility of carbon dating was an idea I was taught at LU and one of the justifications was that the devil did it.

Also, there was some mention of dinosaurs and mammoths being used as plow horses.

[SouthCarolinaGirl79]

I try to avoid posting on this board anymore because while I'm interested in the same topics most of you are, my opinions are usually far to the right of center and it seems that those who do try to post here without echoing the "open minded" group think are accused of trolling.

Like you, I never noticed the two creation stories in the Bible growing up. In college, a private, secular, liberal arts one BTW, my religion professor/philosophy professor said that God intended the Bible to be a book of faith and not of science. He said that the two creation stories show different sides of God. In the first one, God speaks and things happen. It shows a powerful, omnipresent God. In the second version, God talks to the first man and woman. He sees their needs and interacts with them. This shows that God cares about his creation.

I've never researched his answer and I do not know how this reads in the Hebrew translation. The professor said that the two creation stories were certainly noticed by those who did the KJV translation and they left them intact so they did not see a problem. He said it is unfortunate that modern churches and especially children's Bibles want to mix them in a blender. I've always liked his answer. Hope this helps.

[treemom]

See, what pisses me off is you refer to the fact that many of us hold the same views as open minded group think. Does it not occur to you that many of those who oppose patriarchy are going to hold similar views based on the reasons we oppose patriarchy?

And if you want to express a differing opinion from the rest of us, go ahead, just remember most of us will question it....if that is the problem it isn't group think. It is you don't like defending your view.

[formergothardite]

I try to avoid posting on this board anymore because while I'm interested in the same topics most of you are, my opinions are usually far to the right of center and it seems that those who do try to post here without echoing the "open minded" group think are accused of trolling.

Like you, I never noticed the two creation stories in the Bible growing up. In college, a private, secular, liberal arts one BTW, my religion professor/philosophy professor said that God intended the Bible to be a book of faith and not of science. He said that the two creation stories show different sides of God. In the first one, God speaks and things happen. It shows a powerful, omnipresent God. In the second version, God talks to the first man and woman. He sees their needs and interacts with them. This shows that God cares about his creation.

I've never researched his answer and I do not know how this reads in the Hebrew translation. The professor said that the two creation stories were certainly noticed by those who did the KJV translation and they left them intact so they did not see a problem. He said it is unfortunate that modern churches and especially children's Bibles want to mix them in a blender. I've always liked his answer. Hope this helps.

So you are saying neither are true? Not trying to be dense, I just don't understand your answer.

[Conuly]

I try to avoid posting on this board anymore because while I'm interested in the same topics most of you are, my opinions are usually far to the right of center and it seems that those who do try to post here without echoing the "open minded" group think are accused of trolling.

When you start your posts so sweetly like that, I simply can't fathom why anybody could ever jump to the conclusion that you're trolling! Poor dear!

[JesusFightClub]

See, what pisses me off is you refer to the fact that many of us hold the same views as open minded group think. Does it not occur to you that many of those who oppose patriarchy are going to hold similar views based on the reasons we oppose patriarchy?

And if you want to express a differing opinion from the rest of us, go ahead, just remember most of us will question it....if that is the problem it isn't group think. It is you don't like defending your view.

QFT

Why do people think we care about their speshul snowflake reasons for not participating anyway? They all boil down to "I expect to say what I want and not get challenged, as challenge OPPRESSES MEEEE".

If people say something most of the board agrees with like "Patriarchy is really shit" people will nod and say "True that" and if people say something most of the board disagrees with they will be asked, with varying degrees of politeness, to defend their viewpoint. If someone truly believes they are right they ought to be proud to defend their beliefs.

[SouthCarolinaGirl79]

So you are saying neither are true? Not trying to be dense, I just don't understand your answer.

It depends on what you mean by "true." I do not believe the intent of those two passages was for God to explain how the world was created. Those two versions of the creation story show two different sides of God. I believe they are true in the sense that version one shows God is so powerful that he can speak and life is formed and version two shows that he cares about us and he gives us free will and makes us suffer the consequences of our choices. To me, these two seemingly conflicting stories are only confusing if one tries to turn them into How God Created The World 101. However, the first creation story does jive with modern science because both agree that life started in the water. The second story also bears resemblance to other creation myths from around the world by using a story to explain things like the pain of childbirth, the hard work of a farmer, and snakes.

These are only my opinions. You asked how someone could accept these two versions of creation and still hold the Bible as the truth. That's my answer. I believe that God is very real and every civilization has tried to respond to him/her/them. As any world religion text book will say on page one, religion is humankind's response to a divine power. Depending on the culture, the response manifests itself in different ways. I really do believe that all of the world's major religions are responding to the same divine power. It is impossible to put God in a box and that is what religions try to do because people like to put things in order and have rules. I do consider myself a Christian because I was raised to be one and hence it makes the most sense to me. I've studied every major religion of the world and several Native American ones, the Cherokee and the Lakota Souix especially. The parallels across time and space are there. If anyone is curious if God exists, try reading William James' book of mysticism. The similaries in the mystical writings of different people from different religions and cultures are scary. God is real; it is just the dogmas of different religions that are confusing. Then again, if you read this and are a happy atheist, ignore it. To each his/her own.

*Sorry this response took so long to type. I'm on my iPad and any riffles are also the fault of digital keyboard on said iPad.

[Cran]

You can't explain away inconsistencies in the bible by saying "That's because it was translated from the Hebrew!". Some minor translation issues might occur, but many are very substantial and can't be explained that way.

For example, if you read the account of Noah and the Ark, how many animals is Noah taking of each species? Two (Gen 6,22) or seven (Gen 7,2f)?

The hare and the other animals named are no ruminants. (Dtn 14,7).

How many horses and stables did Salomo have, not to mention his 1000 women, 400 or 4000?? (1 Kings 4,26 vs. 2 Chr 9,25)

Seen a molten snake lately? (Ps 58,8)

etc. etc. This list could go on considerably.

I was never an acolyte of the theory that each and every word in the bible is inspired (verbal inspiration), but the bible as a whole telling the inspired message of God. Of course, I do not believe this any longer, but I think this is for believers a more sensible approach: God is known to people under the circumstances they live in, and they have written the bible, over a long span of time and very different conditions. it is not surprising it contains some contradictions. This does not mitigate the divine revelation contained in this book.

[treemom]

Cran,

Why are you being such a pawn of the open mind group think hive vagina?

[Cran]

Lissar's Dog haunts me in my dreams and since I first saw the picture of this modest dog, I can't go against the hive. Possession maybe?

[valsa]

As any world religion text book will say on page one, religion is humankind's response to a divine power.

I don't know what crappy world religions textbooks you've been reading but this is not true. Page one says that religion is humankind's way of coming up with answers to questions about the world around them (where humans come from, what that big ball of light in the sky is, what causes illness and death, what comes after death)

[BravaAmica]

Like you, I never noticed the two creation stories in the Bible growing up.

Did you read the Bible, yourself, on your own, growing up? I don't understand how one can read page one of the Bible and not notice the two different stories.

[freejoytoo]

It depends on what you mean by "true." I do not believe the intent of those two passages was for God to explain how the world was created. Those two versions of the creation story show two different sides of God. I believe they are true in the sense that version one shows God is so powerful that he can speak and life is formed and version two shows that he cares about us and he gives us free will and makes us suffer the consequences of our choices. To me, these two seemingly conflicting stories are only confusing if one tries to turn them into How God Created The World 101. However, the first creation story does jive with modern science because both agree that life started in the water. The second story also bears resemblance to other creation myths from around the world by using a story to explain things like the pain of childbirth, the hard work of a farmer, and snakes.

These are only my opinions. You asked how someone could accept these two versions of creation and still hold the Bible as the truth. That's my answer. I believe that God is very real and every civilization has tried to respond to him/her/them. As any world religion text book will say on page one, religion is humankind's response to a divine power. Depending on the culture, the response manifests itself in different ways. I really do believe that all of the world's major religions are responding to the same divine power. It is impossible to put God in a box and that is what religions try to do because people like to put things in order and have rules. I do consider myself a Christian because I was raised to be one and hence it makes the most sense to me. I've studied every major religion of the world and several Native American ones, the Cherokee and the Lakota Souix especially. The parallels across time and space are there. If anyone is curious if God exists, try reading William James' book of mysticism. The similaries in the mystical writings of different people from different religions and cultures are scary. God is real; it is just the dogmas of different religions that are confusing. Then again, if you read this and are a happy atheist, ignore it. To each his/her own.

*Sorry this response took so long to type. I'm on my iPad and any riffles are also the fault of digital keyboard on said iPad.

No it doesn't! It sounds like your world religion books are biased towards the existence of God. IMO, religion is how people explained nature because they didn't have a sufficient understanding of science. Mass consensus does not equal truth - everyone used to believe that the world was flat.

Don't you think if you were raised a Muslim Islam would make the most sense to you? Or Hinduism? Or Sikhism? You get my drift. Surely it is your culture which is affecting what you have decided is the right religion. Don't so many religions out there go more against the existence of God? Why have people come to so many different conclusions? If Christianity is true, why isn't it the oldest religion? Why is belief in Jesus respected but belief in the Greek gods patently untrue? If you were raised during that time you would be worshipping Zeus. Why do you think people have come out with so many different beliefs in God and why are you sure yours is the right one?

The Bible has been cut and pasted over hundreds of years with dozens of different translations and the stories in it crop up in several other myths. IMO, it is madness to take it as literal truth.

[kamcho_papio]

I don't know what crappy world religions textbooks you've been reading but this is not true. Page one says that religion is humankind's way of coming up with answers to questions about the world around them (where humans come from, what that big ball of light in the sky is, what causes illness and death, what comes after death)

Agreed. And there are for more differences than there are universals. Is god male or female? Is god/the divine a single personality? One personality with many personalities? Or multiple people? Is god/the divine a person or a force or just a atmospheric buzz? How do you contact the divine? Do you need a divine entity to intercede in your rituals and business, or to provide food? Do the divine's human workers have to be specially trained, or just have a gift?

Many cultures also do not prioritize religion over things like reciprocity, generosity, etc., although you often see the important things in a culture embedded in the religion.

[daisyjane1234]

There are two different creation stories because they emerge from two different oral traditions. The redactors of the pentateuch kept both for a reason that we do not have access to since that decision was make several thousand years ago.

Simple.

[purpleeee]

IMO, it is madness to take it as literal truth.

Yes.

I've been reading the Bible (bits of it; I've skipped all the rules about sheep and have mostly dipped into the Jesus's life part). And maybe it's because I follow the Hindu religion and though we don't do scripture in the Christian sense, the stories we have all have layers and layers of symbolism - but still... it's so obvious to me that much of this stuff is symbolic (ok, maybe not the rules about sheep). Maybe it's because so many of the metaphors used are identical to the ones used in my religion - trees, snakes, streams of water, stars. I have no doubt whatsoever that the following people practiced a method of meditation pretty similar to the one I use: Moses, Elijah, Jesus, and Jesus's disciples John and Paul. The metaphorical language is just the same.

And even from a more literalist point of view , Jesus actually says that he's talking in metaphor (calls it parable) and that he did so on purpose. I'm surprised that fundies don't prioritize a metaphorical reading over a literal, in that case, and all the Gothards etc compete over their duelling interpretations of the metaphor.

[Conuly]

There are two different creation stories because they emerge from two different oral traditions. The redactors of the pentateuch kept both for a reason that we do not have access to since that decision was make several thousand years ago.

Simple.

Well, duh, but doesn't that create problems for Mr. and Mrs. "Infallible Word of God"? Why didn't God make sure that only the correct story was retained, in EVERYbody's oral tradition? Why didn't God make sure only the RIGHT story was recorded?

[daisyjane1234]

Sorry. Stating the obvious for fundy troll/lurkers who may have never heard of the concepts of oral tradition/redaction. I know I hadn't in my conservative church/childhood days.

And just to add to my sin of stating the obvious.....ummm, God didn't make sure the "right" one got in because they're both right, symbolically speaking. Oh, and because the Bible isn't infallible and it was written by humans acting as humans, not under some Divine authority.

Again, stated for fundy lurkers.

In the end it goes back to my original post. Mr. and Mrs. Infallible can only make it work if they suspend reason and do some creative mental and symbolic gymnastics.

I'm a bit of a snark virgin. :oops:

[AudreyE]

If you read Misquoting Jesus or other books by that author, you will get a sense of the many, many irreconcilable contradictions that Biblical scholars have been aware of for centuries. There is zero chance that the Bible is 100% factual. Many fundie preachers are aware of it but choose not to share it with their congregations.

[AmyP]

There are a couple of ways that this is looked at- the simplest being that many Hebrew scholars believe that the word yastar can be translated as formed, or had formed. The translation of genesis 2:19 then becomes

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

Most bible scholars teach that the first chapter is intended to lay down the specific order of creation, while the second chapter gives more detail, but does not describe the order of events. The second chapter assumes the order given in the first chapter.