Why God's Word The Bible IS Infallible!

reply to post by bogomil

Your relatively long post, basically says, that "god is infallible, because he's infallible".

In that case - I'll be brief:

Gen 1:1 (ASV) - this verse simply discribes that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

No time line given here which means that the heavens and the earth could be millions or billions or billions n billions of years old.

Gen 1:2 - Gen 2:3 - these verses discribes how God turned his attention to the "formless earth" and prepare it to inhabitted. In other words the verses discribes the sequence of creation events (hint - pay attention to the use of the words 'created' and 'made') before the final arrival (creation) of man.

Gen 2: 4-25 - these verses lays out for us in detail the history of man's initial existence on the earth under the heavens.

Notice the starting verse:

Gen 2:4 (ASV) "These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven."

-- any idea why the word "generations" was used in addition to the word "created"? It's because the writer was discribing for us what happened to man after he was created from the "dust of the ground".

There you have it.

btw- science agrees with the creation event.

like I said - God's word is infallible - but man is.

reply to post by edmc^2


What about you take one step at a time and finish, what we started, before we go to the remaining points.

Regretfully I don't really trust your ability to stay straight on topic.

So: The contradictions between gen. 1 and 2 first, please. Without preaching and without circle-arguments. If you want to stay on the grounds of standard logic and rational reasoning, that is.

Quote: [" btw- science agrees with the creation event."]

That's a quite premature conclusion, and what we eventually will look at in detail.

reply to post by bogomil


point the contradiction - specific verse to narrow it down.

It's not there.

(I have a hunch that you're not considering the context, sorounding text and related text)

reply to post by Backslider


Tell me, how are any of Christ's teachings and commandments harmful?

Excuse me: hate sin, not the sinner. That includes all Christians. Precisely why were all given something to follow in our trying lives. That's what a loving God would do.

reply to post by bogomil


" 1Corinthians 13:
1 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. "



LOVE. So, you can have all the knowledge that you are limited to obtaining on this planet, but if you have not love, you have nothing. I'm POSITIVE everyone can relate to this.

That's all it's about. LOVE. You can only find it perfectly in the Creator who made it. Forgiveness is another thing each and everyone of us must do--learn to forgive your brother's tresspasses and shortcomings. It's what our Father did. I cannot put enough emphasis on the fact that just because some people have come to the realisation that there is hope and a Savior for all of their sins (Christians), that they are just as sinful as the unbeliever. The difference is whether or not you choose to obey God and His teachings thru Christ--out of love for your Creator, and out of love for the creation.

edit on 29-7-2011 by Mantha because: (no reason given)

reply to post by Mantha


Answer on 'the other' thread'.

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by bogomil

 

point the contradiction - specific verse to narrow it down.

It's not there.

(I have a hunch that you're not considering the context, sorounding text and related text)

edit on 29-7-2011 by edmc^2 because: ee

Gen. 1:24-26

Gen. 2:7 and gen. 2:19

I must also admit to a hunch of my own. That you will fabricate a 'context', which no-one else can see. And that it will be lengthy and not strictly logical.

But I shall follow your effort with great interest.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by edmc^2

 

You wrote:

["Huh? common sense is common sense - doesn't matter what ever you belief is. But when common sense based on fact is not used it becomes twisted logic."]

I referred to standard logic. What has 'common sense' to do with that, and why do you introduce it? More wordgames?

Quote: ["Just like life - common sense and logic says that life can only come from life - this is an undeniable irrefutable fact that stood the test of time. Yet inspite of the evidence, unbelievers and atheist alike say this is nonsense and insist that life came from nonlife - and they call this scientific."]

The FACT is, that no-one (including you and your holy manual) has a conclusive answer. And again, what is this upside-down reasoning meant to 'prove'? Talky-talky again.

Quote: ["So what say you bogomil - which one is the undeniable irrefutable fact?

a) God's infallible written word which states that "life can only come from life"?

Or:

b) nonlife is the source of life?

Which one is false - a mistake?

What does your Standard logic say?"]

What 'infallible' words? That's what you want to demonstrate; and in standard logic this isn't done by circle-argumenting: "Assumed 'infallibility' proves infallibility".

Quote: [" Is my as you say "CHRISTIAN logic, with all its merry semantic dances" correct?"]

No, it's not correct. You're just piling more assumptions on top of the old ones, by filling out knowledge-gaps with guesses. This has NOTHING to do with standard logic, which starts from the observable and processable, not from a predetermined answer.

Quote: ["In fact Satan, according to the infallible written word of God the Bible used cunning logic, by twisting the truths he accomplished diabolical things:

He -...."]

If there are any 'liars' around, it's those, who twist standard logic and use circle-argumentation, bad semantics and allegoric 'proofs'.

Quote (on satan): [" 1) Made God appear to be the liar."]

The character, described as Jahveh, is a falsification as seen from several perspectives (e.g. standard logic).

Quote: [" 2) Convinced Eve then Adam that they will not die if they violate God's commands."]

According to the premises of your mythology.

Quote: ["3) Made himself to be an angel of light."]

That was Lucifer, the arch-liberal freedom-fighter.

Quote: ["4) Convinced man that there is no God and man has no need for God."]

Which undoubtly is significant inside your circle-argumentation, but irrelevant outside it.

Quote: ["5) Made God's word the Bible useless - man made, fallible."]

Thanks 'god' for that.

Quote: ["6) Made people blame God for all the badness."]

Or rather a cosmos not especially benevolent to biological life.

Quote: ["7) Got man worship the creation (evolution) rather than the creator."]

You're using your own mindset as everybody's measure-tape. There are more sane approaches to life than 'worshipping'; examplified in e.g. some eastern semi-religions and utilitarian philosophy.

Quote: ["8) Made man believe that God roast people in a fiery place."]

That one you'll have to sort out amongst all the 'true christian' competitors.

Quote: ["9) Accused God that his creation (man) is selfish and weak (remember Job)"]

Mankind (and biological life) is submitted to principles of predation. Contemporary ideologies try to do something about this.

Quote: [" 10) Man's rule is all that is needed - God's kingdom some to be laugh at."]

Considering what theocracies have demonstrated, 'god's kingdom' is to be avoided like a plague.

Quote: ["11) Made Jesus to be just a person - not the son of God - on the flip side made people believe that he is both God the Almighty and the son of God - a mystery."]

Don't get carried away. You're not preaching in a church now. For me these theological points are like debating what kind of green cheese the moon is made of.

Quote: ["his accomplishments is long but the bottom line is - sure you can use twisted logic but will it lead to the truth?

Evidence and experience say NO!"]

So stop using twisted logic.

Quote: ["So what is it that you can twist from the word of God and prove that it's false?"]

Have you confused everybody enough now with this circumstantial preaching? I for one, haven't lost the direction, we're STILL at square one, with gen. 1 and 2 being contradicting each other. But if you like, give it another smoke-screen sermon.

This dude needs a serious revelation.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by bogomil

 

point the contradiction - specific verse to narrow it down.

It's not there.

(I have a hunch that you're not considering the context, sorounding text and related text)

edit on 29-7-2011 by edmc^2 because: ee

Gen. 1:24-26

Gen. 2:7 and gen. 2:19

I must also admit to a hunch of my own. That you will fabricate a 'context', which no-one else can see. And that it will be lengthy and not strictly logical.

But I shall follow your effort with great interest.

I already went through this with him.... good luck though....

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by bogomil

 

point the contradiction - specific verse to narrow it down.

It's not there.

(I have a hunch that you're not considering the context, sorounding text and related text)

edit on 29-7-2011 by edmc^2 because: ee

Gen. 1:24-26

Gen. 2:7 and gen. 2:19

I must also admit to a hunch of my own. That you will fabricate a 'context', which no-one else can see. And that it will be lengthy and not strictly logical.

But I shall follow your effort with great interest.

I already went through this with him.... good luck though....

*Dust your feet off, brother* I'd be happy to discuss God with you, and the love of Jesus.

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
I'm just trying to get him to realize there are two different stories told within the first two chapters of his infallible book...

Don't be silly, any person with common sense can see that Gen 1 is the story of Creation while Gen 2 is commentary of the events. Some people need to retake their comprehension class

.

edit on 28-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

... you people kill me...

Yes, and all those biblical scholars who have spent their entire lives reading and breaking down the bible to figure out how it was all put together are just silly...

you people who believe that the first five books of the bible were all written by one man, in which the death of that man is recorded, are the logical ones....

yep, you're right .... you got me... sorry for being so silly....

in cse you want to hear some more silliness, you know just for a good chuckle, there is a pretty good video in a thread called "Who Wrote The Bible" that is a good introduction into how the whole book was put together according to us silly people....

reply to post by Mantha


go back a couple pages read my argument and let me know... or did you have something else you wanted to discuss?

perhaps the fact that what you call God, according to The Bible, was the father of the lie rather than the serpent I assume you give that title to....

reply to post by wearewatchingyouman


You wrote:

["I already went through this with him.... good luck though...."]

I know, and from your example I've made extra precautions.

But I know our esteemed thread-author from earlier, and he's basically an honest and decent person in spite of his fondness of misapplied allegories. I would never suspect him of consciously lying or knowingly presenting false information.

A few weeks more of this, and some rational conclusions will emerge.

reply to post by wearewatchingyouman

I already went through this with him.... good luck though....

That is funny - you haven't even responded to my last q to you - how's that possible?

Q was - if you don't remember:

'So - should I include v20 with the rest? What about the context - should we consider it to?'

That is, include v20 when reading v19 of Gen 1?

If not why not if yes - why?

(note - typical of critics to quote verses that support their agenda - yet when caught they pretend to already responded)

reply to post by bogomil


I wish I had your patience....

You're right... I find most JW's to be great people... including my father.... unfortunately the way they look at the bible boggles my mind....

When they say things like "this is a problem" they fail to realize the only problem is in how it relates to their dogma... and then they turn around and say they are not dogmatic... everything is circular and maddening...

I try every now and then, but usually I always come back to the same conclusion... my attempts are futile...until they step outside the box and are willing to look at things objectively they just continue to make the same arguments which only make sense to them...

reply to post by edmc^2


sorry I went on vacation and hadn't gotten back that far in my responses yet....

but yes, we should include verse 20 in relation to verse 19

you apply a context to a context which isn't there... what is left to discuss?

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
reply to post by edmc^2

 

sorry I went on vacation and hadn't gotten back that far in my responses yet....

you apply a context to a context which isn't there... what is left to discuss?

no prob - that's understandable.

Just one thing that I need to know with regards to the topic you raised:

When reading a verse - in order to fully understand it, do we need to include the context of what was said, why it was said in addition to the surrounding texts and related text?

So again - I'm simply asking you - do I need to include v20 when reading v19? Why?

Simple Q.

reply to post by edmc^2


of course, but we can't invent a context which isn't there out of thin air to try and prove our point of view... verse 20 is necessary to fully understand verse 19....

however, if you're going where I think you're going with this, it's going to take some contextual acrobatics, because otherwise as you stated it presents a problem with what you believe...

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
reply to post by edmc^2

 

of course but we can't invent a context which isn't there out of thin air to try and prove our point of view...

Great - and that's the correct way of reading and understanding the Bible - because like I said the Bible interprets itself.

So is it correct then to read the context, surrounding verses and related text when reading Gen. 1:24-26
Gen. 2:7 and gen. 2:19?

Because if you don't you will arrive at the wrong conclusion - that is a contradiction.

however, if you're going where I think you're going with this, it's going to take some contextual acrobatics, because otherwise as you stated it presents a problem with what you believe...

Isn't you whose the one doing the "contextual acrobatics"? By not considering the context, surrounding verses and related text when reading Gen. 1:24-26 vs Gen. 2:7 and gen. 2:19 you came to the wrong conclusion.

Originally posted by edmc^2

Originally posted by wearewatchingyouman
reply to post by edmc^2

 

of course but we can't invent a context which isn't there out of thin air to try and prove our point of view...

Great - and that's the correct way of reading and understanding the Bible - because like I said the Bible interprets itself.

So is it correct then to read the context, surrounding verses and related text when reading Gen. 1:24-26
Gen. 2:7 and gen. 2:19?

Because if you don't you will arrive at the wrong conclusion - that is a contradiction.

Oh I love this one...

you are right about one thing it is a contradiction, and the bible is full of them...

The bible does not interpret itself.... Man interprets the bible and some of them twist certain verses to invent a context and call it the bible interpreting itself.... I call it dillusion...