Egyptian Mythology

[Amy Denny]

The other thought was simply that love is not the whole story on God.  Love sometimes involves
                hate.  God, "loves righteousness and hates iniquity."

Thanks Thomas for clarifying your thought. sometimes I fear all my pistons aren't firing in a timely manner
I understand and agree with this thought, but I don't see how what I had said would contradict this. It is simply another characteristic of God. One doesn't necessarily negate the other.
I think my intent with the "love explanation" was more to say that I don't really understand how people get so upset over whether a book is falible. the book is a tool to teach us. It is not the devine itself.
I don't worship the book. I am thankful for the stories. Recognizing there may be more of man's errant handiwork involved than many would like to acknowledge.
Despite this God is still able. And I don't think God stopped speaking when they finished printing/adding on to that book.
just my thoughts.
amy

[MGov]

Dear brother Will,

I thought of you when I read Ps 119:99 this morning.
I share these promises with you:

Ps 119:99 I have more insight than all my teachers, For Thy testimonies are my meditation.
Pr 5:13 "And I have not listened to the voice of my teachers, Nor inclined my ear to my instructors!

Solomon in all of his wisdom and pursuits finally concluded:
Ecc 12:8-13
"Vanity of vanities," says the Preacher, "all is vanity!"
In addition to being a wise man, the Preacher also taught the people knowledge; and he pondered, searched out and arranged many proverbs.
The Preacher sought to find delightful words and to write words of truth correctly.
The words of wise men are like goads, and masters of these collections are like well-driven nails; they are given by one Shepherd.
But beyond this, my son, be warned: the writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body.
The conclusion, when all has been heard, is: fear God and keep His commandments, because this applies to every person.

Lord bless,
a sister in the Lord
MG

[Kimberley Tobin]

I'm just a simple reader of the word of God,

" All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

All means all.  Inspiration in the Greek "theopneustos" - divinely breathed in;-given by inspiration of God.

[Will Jones]

Verne,

There is no doubt the Scriptures are inspired as it says in 2 Timothy, but inspiration does not imply “inerrancy,” a word that was only used in the early 19th Century by Princeton Scholars and later Fundamentalists used.  I have shown in this thread that many famous Christians such as Luther and the early Church Fathers like Origen and Augustine DID NOT accept the Bible as perfect, but did accept its overall message.  Inerrancy is a 19th Century theological term that uses inspiration as a jumping point.  To believe the Bible is perfect in every word is a relatively new development in Christendom and it has turned many people off to Christianity because they can’t or won’t accept the Bible as inerrant in matters of science because there are plenty of verses that betray the fact that ancients were, in many cases, wrong in matters of science.  

Christians focus on INSPIRATION (and wrongly claim inerrancy) whereas skeptics focus on the fact that HUMANS WROTE THE BIBLE.  God inspired humans to write the Bible, humans who communicated the message of God but wrote according to their cultural understanding.  Inspired YES; perfect NO.  As it says in 2 Timothy, all Scripture is inspired (not written by God) and is profitable for establishing doctrine and how to live your life before God, NOT perfection in all matters such as science.  

I am not attacking the Bible.  On the contrary, Christians who preach the Bible is inerrant have unknowingly sabotaged the spiritual authority of the Bible because many people do not regard the Bible as inerrant nowadays and scoff at how Princeton Scholars and Fundamentalist foolishly have attempted to exalt the Bible as an authority in matters of spirituality and science.  I have described my position in detail here.

MGov, to answer your question again, I use my reason and conscience to understand the message of the Bible and I have already in many places described that message—God loved us and will forgive us and gave us Jesus to show us the way to an abundant life with God, etc.  In another place I wrote, ”many Christians such as Luther, Augustine, Origen and others did not discount the message of the Bible simply because they believed it erred in matters of fact.  The Bible relays truth, not THE TRUTH.  It contains what scholars call the Kerigma or Kerugma:  the gospel, the good news of salvation that God loves us and will forgive us.”  



So far, nobody has tried to deal with the questions I put forward because they are clear contradictions if you believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.  To make it easier, here they are again in different form that I accept people to attempt to deal with if they will continue to claim inerrancy:

(1) How do you deal with the fact that in Genesis 1 mankind was created last but in Genesis 2 Mankind is made before the things listed in Genesis 1?  Is this a contradiction, YES or NO?  These facts contradict themselves if you don’t understand that there are two creation stories described here.  If you don’t believe there are two creation stories, this is a contradiction.  CONTRADICTION NUMBER ONE.

(2) How do you deal with the fact that Adam is made before such things as the birds, trees and animals and that he took time to name all the creatures BEFORE he fell asleep and God created Eve?  Is this a contradiction, YES or NO?  These facts contradict themselves if you don’t understand that there are two creation stories described here.  If you don’t believe there are two creation stories, this is a contradiction.  CONTRADICTION NUMBER TWO.  Even if you explain away the order, which you cannot honestly, I would wager that it would take more than a day for Adam to feel lonely and name all the animals before God created Eve.  (Does that include the dinosaurs and the millions of extents species that once lived?)  The order of creation simply does not match up in the two creation stories, but Bibles like the NIV try to fix the translation to try and make them match up.

(3) How do you explain away all of the errant references to cosmology in Genesis and other books of the Bible?  Does the Bible in many places relate an ancient, incorrect view of Cosmology—YES or NO?  YES and this is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact!  CONTRADICTION NUMBER THREE.  (Throw out the “phenomenological” counterargument because it is just an attempt to explain away the fact that the ancients INCORRECTLY described the world as they saw it.  It is true that the ancients wrote the Bible according to what their perspective on the universe, but what they saw was incorrect and that makes what they wrote incorrect and errant from the standards of modern science AND this makes the Bible errant.   Does the Bible in many places relate an ancient, incorrect, PHENOMENOLOGOICAL view of Cosmology—YES!  CONTRADICTION NUMBER THREE .)  

It only takes ONE contradiction in the Bible to disprove the manmade notion of inerrancy.  Here are three very clear contradictions and we have not moved very far beyond the first few chapters of Genesis.  Conclusion:  the Bible is not inerrant because it was written by men who were inspired by God to communicate the message of God.

I have made my point and will rest my case unless someone can deal with ALL THREE contradictions.  Understanding the Hebrew will not help you because the Bible has been translated quite accurately in the NASB and other translations that do their best to stick to the original meaning.  If you accept that Genesis has two creation stories, there is still on very big contradiction—the ancients phenomenological understanding of the universe is wrong or imperfect; therefore, the Bible is not inerrant in matters of science and to claim otherwise is to be deceived and cause a stumbling block to those who might accept Christianity if it were not for a false “selling” of the Bible.

I don't know what else I can say.  There are still so many other contradictions to deal with but let us just stick with these first three that Peter suggested I put forth:

Verne,
Tom,
MGov,
Peter,
and anyone else can answer my questions:
(1) Is this a contradiction, YES or NO?
(2) Is this a contradiction, YES or NO?
(3) Does the Bible in many places relate an ancient, incorrect, “phenomenological” Cosmology—YES or NO?  Admit it: YES it does!

And there are still so many more contradictions to deal with after these.

I am looking forward to your replies.  

[MGov]

Will,

You are definitely more educated and much more well-versed on the subject at hand.  I tend to take a very simplistic  approach;  Why is GOD not able to preserve His word, if He is God?

MG

[MGov]

Verne,
Tom,
MGov,
Peter,
and anyone else can answer my questions:
(1) Is this a contradiction, YES or NO?
(2) Is this a contradiction, YES or NO?
(3) Does the Bible in many places relate an ancient, incorrect, “phenomenological” Cosmology—YES or NO?  Admit it: YES it does!

And there are still so many more contradictions to deal with after these.

I am looking forward to your replies.  

Since you included me in your list of names I will respond to your query, though I feel very inadequate and unknowledgeable (long word VC).  The answer is yes, there are contradictions.  It is not clear to me, however, that a contradiction proves that the Bible is not inerrant.  I haven't really thought about it to give an intelligent answer at this time.

Love and God bless,
M.

[Will Jones]

Will,

You are definitely more educated and much more well-versed on the subject at hand.  I tend to take a very simplistic  approach;  Why is GOD not able to preserve His word, if He is God?

MG

This "simplistic approach" is a common argument of inerrantists:  God preserved his Word.  First, this is blindly assuming that every word in the Bible is THE WORD of God.  I believe the Bible has, on the whole, been preserved remarkably well over the years to communicate THE MESSAGE of God, the Kerigma or Kerugma:  the gospel, the good news of salvation that God loves us and will forgive us.  

At the same time, you can change this famous question to be:  Is God able to use fallible humans and inspire them to communicate HIS MESSAGE through their personal writing styles, cultural beliefs, limited understanding of science, etc. ?  The answer is YES, God can and has!    Can God use fallible humans to communicate spiritual truth?  YES, God can and has!  If God is perfect does that mean his Bible has to be perfect?  NO, the Bible does not have to be perfect to prove the perfection of God.  Does the Bible say that Jesus is the Word of God and the Bible is THE Word of God?  NO, the Bible says Jesus is the Word of God and the Bible never claims to be inerrant.  SO... Did God use humans to communicate his words, word for word, so that the Bible is inerrant?  THAT is the question we are dealing with here.  If errors are found throughout the Bible, it only proves that God has used humans to communicate His message in spite of human fallibility.  This is good news to any who hope to share the good news of the gospel:  God can use use, in spite of mistakes we might make, to communicate spiritual truth.

So you have admited that the Bible has contradictions... So do you still believe the Bible is inerrant in matters of science?

[MGov]

This "simplistic approach" is a common argument of inerrantists:  God preserved his Word.  First, this is blindly assuming that every word in the Bible is THE WORD of God.  I believe the Bible has, on the whole, been preserved remarkably well over the years to communicate THE MESSAGE of God, the Kerigma or Kerugma:  the gospel, the good news of salvation that God loves us and will forgive us.  

At the same time, you can change this famous question to be:  Is God able to use fallible humans and inspire them to communicate HIS MESSAGE through their personal writing styles, cultural beliefs, limited understanding of science, etc. ?  The answer is YES, God can and has!    Can God use fallible humans to communicate spiritual truth?  YES, God can and has!  If God is perfect does that mean his Bible has to be perfect?  NO, the Bible does not have to be perfect to prove the perfection of God.  Does the Bible say that Jesus is the Word of God and the Bible is THE Word of God?  NO, the Bible says Jesus is the Word of God and the Bible never claims to be inerrant.  SO... Did God use humans to communicate his words, word for word, so that the Bible is inerrant?  THAT is the question we are dealing with here.  If errors are found throughout the Bible, it only proves that God has used humans to communicate His message in spite of human fallibility.  This is good news to any who hope to share the good news of the gospel:  God can use use, in spite of mistakes we might make, to communicate spiritual truth.

So you have admited that the Bible has contradictions... So do you still believe the Bible is inerrant in matters of science?

If errors are found throughout the Bible, it only proves that God has used humans to communicate His message in spite of human fallibility.
Like I said, I haven't clearly thought this out, but I'm having fun dialoging with you.  How do you manage all this online time?
I have a problem with 'it only proves...'. I'm not sure about that.  I suggest, that there are things we do not or have not yet fully understood, and therefore, cannot come to accurate conclusions on those matters.

So you have admited that the Bible has contradictions... So do you still believe the Bible is inerrant in matters of science?
 I don't see why not?


I just did a search on Google and discovered this:
http://www.gospelcom.net/moh/WinkPrat/DTM/HolyBibleWhollyTrue.htm

MG

[al Hartman]

     Because, generally speaking, i am far out of my depth in these discussions, i have been more a reader than a poster on this topic (which has long since left being about Egyptian Mythology, and become "The Bible: Flawed or Perfect?").
     When i did venture forth to post questions, the parties of whom i directly asked them seemed to either dance around the subject without directly answering OR occupy themselves with answering on behalf of their "opposition" instead of themselves.
     The home in which i was reared taught me long ago that some people would rather argue than not, and to them it is more important to win than to learn.  But there is enough of the optimist in me that i yet hope to elicit an honest answer, and so i post a question once again:

     Will has told us repeatedly that inerrancy regarding the bible is a concept created in the nineteenth century, and that prior to that time (the first 1,800+ years of Christianity) God's people accepted that the message of the bible was the truth of the gospel, and the specific wording was not an issue.  He has said that the early councils that were convened to decide matters of doctrine were held because the manuscripts available at that time were not considered to be inerrant.  Furthermore, Will tells us that later key men in church history, e.g. Augustine, Origen and Luther did not have a belief in the bible as being flawless.

     So here is my twofold question of Tom, Verne, or anyone professing that the bible is inerrant:

A.] Is there any EVIDENCE to refute Will's claim that inerrancy was not generally claimed prior to its initiation by the Princeton Scholars in the 1800s?  And, if so, please tell us SPECIFICALLY what that evidence is.  This has not been adequately addressed, if at all.

B.] If there is no such evidence, i.e. if the early church, and God's people for centuries thereafter, have triumphed and progressed WITHOUT the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy, why is it suddenly so essential that we accept it?  If God was able to keep and to bless the redeemed for all those centuries without such a belief, can't/won't he continue to do so?

     This is as honest a question as i know how to ask.  
 i have the greatest admiration ("awe" would not be too strong a term) for studious and scholarly people, particularly saints.  But it is not my forte.  My I.Q. is supposedly above average, but my abilities as a student are quite limited, and often strained.  What intellectual pursuits some deeply love and enjoy cause me intense headaches without producing a high-grade result.
     So PLEASE try to answer so all may understand.  We are already impressed with your background, standing and vocabulary.  You don't need to impress us-- just teach us...

Expectantly,
al Hartman

[MGov]

Since you included me in your list of names I will respond to your query, though I feel very inadequate and unknowledgeable (long word VC).  The answer is yes, there are contradictions.  It is not clear to me, however, that a contradiction proves that the Bible is not inerrant.  I haven't really thought about it to give an intelligent answer at this time.
Love and God bless,
M.

Verne is doing a very excellent job of responding to you, that I don't need to muddy the water.  However, since I have already put my foot in it, I feel a need to re-state my point of view.  When I read Gen 1 and Gen 2 in the NASB translation I see that they apparently 'contradict' each other and appear to be different stories (especially around Gen2:18).  However, this morning we dug out the Hebrew interlinear and Gen 2:18 says 'and God said' not 'then God said'. The Bible is repeating the creation story in Gen 2. Gen 1 is clearly written in time order sequence, but Gen 2 isn't.
Having communicated with people over the years and having misunderstood and been misunderstood I fully understand that even though people state and repeat and repeat their restatements, confusion sometimes occurs and there are situations that the re-hashing(for the nth time) clarifies the points of view.  In the case of the Bible, since I believe that 'all scripture is inspired by God..', I always give God the benefit of the doubt when I see an apparent contradiction.  Yes, there are passages that apparently contradict each other, but untill I fully investigate them I do not classify them as being actually contradictions.
MY statement (which I have quoted above) in not accurate in stating my point of view.

Love and God bless,
M

[al Hartman]

Verne,

     Am i to take it, then, from your suggestion that my question may be brainless and lacking intellect, that you have no answer for it?


from the sidelines (according to the evasive),
al

P.S.  What exactly do you, Verne, say it means that we are told to trust in the Lord with ALL OUR HEART and lean NOT unto OUR OWN UNDERSTANDING?  i am given to believe that to TRUST is to have FAITH, which IS the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things not seen.  Why, then, do we need all this extraneous "proof" that everyone is so worked up about?

     ***Thanks for keeping the verbage manageable.***
     ***************************************

[Joe Sperling]

This is a very very interesting and enlightening
discussion. I just wish I underwstood it.
I believe that the whole Bible is inspired except
for two words in Ezekiel chapter 18. The words
"and then" in this chapter are clearly not inspired.

But the whole rest of the Bible is inspired for sure.
But speaking of the Egyptians, is that where the
first Pyramid scam started? And also, believe it or
not a common phrase used by directors started
in Egypt. When the a mummy was completely fin-
ished the leading mortician would say "That's a wrap".

There are many other interesting things about Egypt
that I could share, but I'll let you all get back to the subject at hand and stop intruding.

[David Mauldin]

Hi, Remember me the guy who started this thread?  As I was saying there is no evidence that a million people wandered around the Sinai for forty years!  No coke bottles, McDonalds paper bags etc...Also the strongest argument that a Pharaoh did suffer  the humiliations documented in the book of Exodus is Ramses the great, Yes, almost all historians who support the exodus account point to this Pharaoh as he is noted for losing his firstborn son, Yet a mojor problem with the theory is that the book of Exodus and the Psalms clain that "Pharoah and his chariots were drown in the Red Sea." But egyptologist know that this pharaoh died a very old man who ruled Egypt for 66 years!

[Will Jones]

Verne,

I agree with your exhortation to be careful readers of God’s word, but you need to follow your own advice.  The verse you quote is Genesis 2:1 and then you tell me to “there is no view whatever to sequence...that was already given in chapter one. Note ordinal and sequential descriptors are used there only.”  You put special emphasis on “only YET “the seventh day,” an ordinal and sequential descriptor, is used in verse two and three of Genesis 2.  You have just stumbled over your own foot.    

Textual Critics think that the second account of creation begins in verse 4:  “This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord made earth and heaven” (NASB).  Genesis 2:4 and onwards claims to be “the account”—a separate creation story than Genesis 1-2:3—in “the day,” not the seven days, that “the LORD God made earthy and heaven.”  Yet you state wrongly that “Genesis 2 is not an account of original creation” but this is not what Genesis 2:4 says and what so many Biblical scholars believe!  Why would Genesis 2 mention again about God creating different things as if we have forgotten them after reading Genesis 1?  Simple:  because they are separate stories.  If you compare the two creation stories, there is a problem if you think that Genesis 1-3 is a literal and coherent account of creation.

So I don’t agree with your theory that order does not matter in the second creation story which starts at Genesis 2:4.  Even if you don’t agree with the order contradictions, do you not think it would take more than a day to name all the animals that exist and existed (including the dinosaurs?), realize that none of them were God enough as a helper of Adam, Adam falls asleep, and God creates Eve.  That is one full day especially if you add up the time it would take for Adam to name all the animals of the past and present!   And what about those poor dinosaurs and the age of the earth?  

I suggest you rethink your attempt at dealing with the first of many contradictions because you have contradicted yourself in attempting to deal with a clear contradiction.  

You wrote,  

The point I am making is that errantists must necessarily take the postion that God is not the author of Scripture.
What ever you think of Will''s position, one has to respect his diligence and consistency. Errantists must inevitably relegate the certainty of their salvation to the foggy hinterlands of nervous, hopeful uncertainty.
Those of you standing on the sidelines I would like to encourage you to use the brain and intellect God gave you to wrestle with these matters. We are ehxorted to study to show ourselves approved unto God...Get out your lexicons, word studies etc. and let us see some thoughtful posts to Will's challenges...contend for the faith...!!!
Verne

My reply:  Men, inspired by God, are the authors of Scripture… At least, that is what the Bible says.  Do you have the gift of prophecy to be able to state that I “relegate the certainty of [my] salvation to the foggy hinterlands of nervous, hopeful uncertainty” simply because I believe that the Bible is not inerrant in matters of 21st Century science?    No, I have already told you I believe in the message of the Bible and that believing in an inerrant Bible has no bearing whatsoever on a person’s salvation.  Contend for the faith?  Have I not been arguing that falsely advocating that the Bible is inerrant in matters of science is a stumbling block to those who might accept the faith?  To make a belief in inerrancy synonymous with believing in the gospel like so many Christians do turns people off to the Bible because they see the Bible is filled with references to an archaic cosmology that we know today is false.  

[Will Jones]

MGov,  

Thank you for your private message and I appreciate your prayers.  As I have stressed, people have to decide what they believe abnd what we believe could be wrong if we refuse to honestly examine our beliefs.  I brought this whole issue up not to try to prove something, but to describe what I have seen and how a manmade belief in inerrancy can be a major stumbling block to accepting the gospel.  As an example... The link you gave (http://www.gospelcom.net/moh/WinkPrat/DTM/HolyBibleWhollyTrue.htm) again is yet another example of how many Christians are guilty of being selective with facts when they are making bold assertions such as this:

The Bible: Your Science Book
The Bible is scientifically accurate. The God of the Bible is the God who created the universe. True science and Scripture will always agree - they both have the same Author! No statement in the Scriptures is scientifically incorrect.

Then the old verse in Isaiah is pulled out of the hat to show that the earth is “round” or “sphere” even though another equally possible interpretation is the “dome” or “firmament” that covers the flat earth and holds back the waters above.  Then another Scripture is used to show that God hung the earth on nothing.  Impressive!  Two verses to prove the Bible is supposedly inerrant in matters of science!  Great, but there are plenty of other verses that I have quoted elsewhere that show the earth is said to be immovable and to have pillars as a foundation.  THIS SELECTIVE QUOTING OF THE BIBLE TO MAKE GRANDIOSE CLAIMS THAT THE BIBLE IS INERRANT IN MATTERS OF SCIENCE IS A DISGRACE TO CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS AND DOES GREAT HARM TO THE GOSPEL because the Bible is full of passages that are not scientifically sound.  Why should anyone want to accept the gospel when the people presenting the gospel to them are not being completely true or honest about the Bible?  No wonder many people reject Christianity because they think they have to accept the Bible as something it is not simply because Christians say it is so contrary to facts anyone can find by doing a simple search on the internet!  There are plenty of internet sites I have found in the last week that very clearly show the Bible is not inerrant in matters of science.  

To preserve their extra-Biblical belief in inerrancy, Christians are just as guilty as non-Christians when it comes to ignoring what does not match up with their beliefs.  

To be selective in dealing with facts is a kind of blindness.  

If the "light" in us is darkness, how great is that darkness when we refuse to accept or see certain facts that will force us to admit we were wrong.