Question for those who believe the Bible has no error

[Sola]

I don't understand how anyone can buy into Mormonism. It seems to me like Joseph Smith made it all up for attention and a reason for people to basically worship America.

/offending Mormons

I dont either. I like the sense of community and family amongt mainstream mormon, but the whole joseph smith and the golden plates thing... are you kidding me?

[Austin]

I highly recommend Jon Krakauer's book, Under the Banner of Heaven. Very eye-opening about Joseph Smith and the beginnings and history of mormonism (plus he's a terrific author).

[Sola]

Will see kobo have that. Any other suggestions gratefully received. Im bored out of my mind recovering from my surgery.

[freejoytoo]

He read it out of a HAT. And then conveniently couldn't rewrite a piece when someone hid it because God told him not to. Right. And don't they believe that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri or something? How can anyone take that seriously?

From what I've read about Joseph Smith he sounds like a very, very dodgy character. The church's history sounds pretty messed up too, especially in regards to black people and Native Americans.

[Bloo]

Mormonism is funny. I saw The Book of Mormon on Broadway in December and it was HILARIOUS. Moreover, they actually managed to spend 2 hours or so poking fun at Mormons without a single mention of polygamy.

I've read several very frightening accounts of Warren Jeffs's behavior (he's the "Prophet" of the FLDS, currently incarcerated for child rape) and that, on the other hand, is too sad to even joke about.

[valsa]

I don't understand how anyone can buy into Mormonism. It seems to me like Joseph Smith made it all up for attention and a reason for people to basically worship America.

/offending Mormons

I obviously don't speak for all atheists with this but, to me, Mormonism isn't any more or less kooky and/or insane than any other religion, when looked at objectively.

[Bloo]

The thing about other religions is most of them have centuries upon centuries for stories to be shaped and molded. They also rely heavily upon oral tradition. This doesn't apply to word-is-law fundies, obviously, but of course the Catholic stories are going to sound a little fantastic if it's all word-of-mouth up until a recent point.

Mormonism, however, started in 1823 or so. Everything Joseph Smith was doing and saying was well documented. Not much room for creative editing there.

[Sola]

I obviously don't speak for all atheists with this but, to me, Mormonism isn't any more or less kooky and/or insane than any other religion, when looked at objectively.

I get your point. When comparing it to any other religion, all are batshit insane. But mormonism is relatively modern and spread in more enlightened times when cpared with mainsstream abrahamic religions. So in that sense yeah ido consider it to be slightly higher on the scale of wtf-ery.

:D Mind you none can hold a candle to scientology! Zenu, really?

[AmyP]

Do we have no members here who believe the Bible is literally true? I know we have some Calvinists, from the Ask a Calvinist thread, do they believe the Bible is completely true?

I'm more of a Calvinist than not, but you already heard my opinion on the passage.

I believe that what the biblical authors intended to teach, written in the original languages, interpreted both in the context of the writer's culture as well as in the context of the bible as a whole, is accurate and not in conflict with the will of God.

[formergothardite]

The first chapter says

I don't read that verse as saying that he created them at the same time, but simply that he created them both, and they were both in his image.

I also don't read the second chapter the way that you have summarized it. I don't think God ever looked for a companion for Adam among the animals. The passage starts with the statement that Adam is alone. The animals are brought to Adam, and then Adam recognizes that he is alone. And then Eve is created.

Somehow I managed to miss this answer. The whole passage about making man and women is preceded by listing all the other things God made on various days, unless you are also going to accept that perhaps God didn't mean it when he said he made all the various animals on those days, it doesn't make sense to suddenly say God didn't really create both man and woman at the same time on that day. It is kind of like saying God didn't really put the fish and birds on the earth on the days he said he created them, he just created them.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.â€

27 So God created mankind in his own image,

in the image of God he created them;

male and female he created them.

Notice the use of the word "they", not him. In this passage, God didn't just create one man Adam, he created two people, male and female.

[AmyP]

I'm more of a Calvinist than not, but you already heard my opinion on the passage.

I believe that what the biblical authors intended to teach, written in the original languages, interpreted both in the context of the writer's culture as well as in the context of the bible as a whole, is accurate and not in conflict with the will of God.

ok, I read it more like this.

This Christmas I made sugar cookies and peanut butter cookies. I made them for the Christmas Eve party.

I made both kinds of cookies, and I made them both for the same purpose, but I could have made one type in the morning, and the other in the evening. Just because I grouped them together that way in the sentence does not mean I made them at precisely the same time. I read the sentence you quoted in Gen 1 that way. God made both in his image, for the same purpose. I do not see how that sentence, as I understand the wording, locks them in as being created at exactly the same moment in time. Gen 2, interpreted in light of the timeframe laid down in Gen 1, gives more detailed information.

[formergothardite]

Do you believe that it wasn't really a 24 hour day? Because there is no way Adam could have gone through all the animals and named them in one day.

And the whole thing about woman being called woman because she is created out of man, doesn't really line up with God created man, both male and female in His image. Adam even says that she is bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.

[formergothardite]

How do you explain the two different Noah's ark stories, too. This is another one I never noticed. I really think it is just beat into your head growing up fundie that this is what the Bible says, that you can read the Bible and you only see what you are told is there.

Gen. 6 says:

You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

So this one Noah is bringing two of every kind of animal, including birds and creatures that move along the ground.

But then we go to Gen. 7 and it says:

Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4

So seven pairs of every clean animal, including birds, which is totally different than the first passage.

Gen. 7;17 states this:

17 For forty days the flood kept coming on the earth, and as the waters increased they lifted the ark high above the earth.

So the water kept increasing for 40 days with this verse.

But then is Gen. 7:24 it states:

24And the waters swelled on the earth for one hundred fifty days.

So with this vers the water kept increasing for 150 days.

And also, from what I have read, the two differing accounts use two different names of God. The 40 day one YHWH and the 150 day one elohim, which makes it pretty obvious that these were written at different times, by two differnt people and then combined into one story. But both cannot be correct. God could not have commanded them to bring two of every bird and also commanded Noah to bring seven of every bird.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Traditional Jewish sources certainly noted the different divine names, dual creation of man/woman, etc.

Instead of just relying on a literal reading of the simply Biblical text, however, traditional Judaism has the Oral Law (Talmud), which is filled with different interpretations and explanations, various mystical traditions and later Biblical commentators. It would take WAY too much time to go into detail about it all, but here's a small sample:

- different Divine names are said to correspond to different Divine attributes - Elokim is equated with Justice, while YHWH is equated with mercy.

- the Adam (first human) was indeed created with male and female attributes, and the second story describes how this hermaphrodite being was split into two

- there's an alternate folklore that the male and female beings in Gen. 1 were Adam and his first wife, Lilith. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith

- Genesis 2 does not describe a new creation, but elaborates on Gen 1. The animals were created before, but merely brought before the Adam

- "ezer k'negdo", commonly translated as helpmeet, actually means "helper opposite". This is seen as meaning that if the man is worthy the woman will be a helper, but if he isn't, she will be against him. According to the Artscroll notes, "Often it is the wife's responsibility to oppose her husband and prevent him from acting rashly, or to help him achieve a common course by questioning, criticizing and discussing. Thus, the verse means literally that there are times a wife can best be a helper by being against him".

- 2 of everything was brought into the Ark, so that the species would continue. The additional pairs of kosher species were there in order to allow sacrifices.

[formergothardite]

The second set of verses clearly state that seven pairs of every kind of bird were to be brought on the Ark while the first clearly states two of every kind of bird was to be brought onthe Ark.

[Anxious Girl]

Even though I'm a Christian, I feel as if the Bible is very flawed. Sometimes I feel like the elephant in a room of Christians at holiday masses... I personally feel that some parts of the Bible are true, others are not, and others are exgerrated. I like to believe that some of the stories have a kernel of truth to them, but not all of them. Like one of the plagues where God turns the ancient Egyptians' water into blood? I don't believe in that. I believe that there was a major flood, but not that the whole earth was flooded. Obviously the man's name wasn't Noah. Flood myths I think contain a certain kernel of truth in them. But sadly, most early civilizations built their major cities and towns near water, so this may just be the hopeful side of me wanting to believe that Atlantis is real. Sorry for the long babble. * :oops: *

[formergothardite]

Even though I'm a Christian, I feel as if the Bible is very flawed. Sometimes I feel like the elephant in a room of Christians at holiday masses... I personally feel that some parts of the Bible are true, others are not, and others are exgerrated. I like to believe that some of the stories have a kernel of truth to them, but not all of them. Like one of the plagues where God turns the ancient Egyptians' water into blood? I don't believe in that. I believe that there was a major flood, but not that the whole earth was flooded. Obviously the man's name wasn't Noah. Flood myths I think contain a certain kernel of truth in them. But sadly, most early civilizations built their major cities and towns near water, so this may just be the hopeful side of me wanting to believe that Atlantis is real. Sorry for the long babble. * :oops: *

If I became a Christian again, I think I would have to view the Bible this way. I don't think I can ever go back to belieiving that the Bible is literally true with no errors. It just doesn't make sense.

[Kaylee]

Do we have no members here who believe the Bible is literally true? I know we have some Calvinists, from the Ask a Calvinist thread, do they believe the Bible is completely true?

Oh, crap, here we go again. :?

I do believe the Bible is literally true. I don't go looking to contradictions, but I went through a lot of them at one point several years ago and ended up finding plausible rebuttals to all of those listed on the website I was working from. I do think we sometimes err in interpretation and translation, especially when we overlook the cultural context and common practices surrounding certain passages, and that sometimes we rely on traditions and assumptions which may be incorrect to fill in things that are not stated explicitly in scripture, and I don't think the KJV is some super-special translation. I do believe that the Bible is completely true as far as the original text, and I believe that God has preserved his word to keep it from getting mistranslated to the point that anything important or spiritually significant would be lost or mistranslated.

As for the things already mentioned, I've always seen Genesis 1 as more of a "creation in a nutshell" and Genesis 2 as a more detailed account of the creation of humankind. Sort of like a woman with kids might be like "Bob & I got married and then we had Maria, Kayla, Reggie, and Derek. But when Kayla was born....(crazy birth story here)". It doesn't mean Kayla was born twice or that there were 2 different versions, it's just expounding upon the original.

As far as the flood and animals, my understanding is that Noah took 2 of all animals, so even the unclean species had a chance to survive, and 7 of the clean animals because they would have needed something to eat while on the ark and to use as a sacrifice after they got off the ark safely. It would defeat the point to bring 2 cows and then have them go extinct because Noah's family wanted meat or to bring all those darn birds safely through then kill them for a sacrifice, without at least having 2 left to propagate the species.

For the length of the flood, I was taught that the waters kept increasing, possibly coming up from the springs in the oceans for 40 days, but that it took 150 days for the waters to subside, sort of like a natural flood may take days or weeks to go back down after the rain or hurricane has passed.

[doggie]

I do believe the Bible is literally true. I don't go looking to contradictions, but I went through a lot of them at one point several years ago and ended up finding plausible rebuttals to all of those listed on the website I was working from.

Of course you did. You went looking for that info and you found it. Plus I bet you found info that proved there were problems but you chose not to believe that. Not mocking you but people tend to find info that proves their beliefs and seldom want info that does not prove them.

You admit that translations can make some errors and the cultural change could cause them. But those things change the truth of the bible. The biggest problem with the bible is that it is a book. If you read the bible you have to interpret it and a fair amount because how old it is and the way it is written. once you do that you have changed the meaning and this no matter how true it is once a human reads it it is not true anymore.

If the bible was meant to be literately true It should have been written so it did not need to be interpreted and thus misunderstood.