1. Maryland
    Joined
    10 Jun '05
    Moves
    110489
    25 Jun '11 19:33
    Once one determines that part of the bible is incorrect, that person would have to assume that other parts of the bible may also be not correct. One would also have to realize the possibility, that, (considering the claim that the bible is divine), that the bible is not divine after all.
  2. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    25 Jun '11 19:56
    Well, the Bible is an artificial collection of separate books. I think each book should be considered independently.
  3. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    25 Jun '11 20:10
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Well, the Bible is an artificial collection of separate books. I think each book should be considered independently.
    So far, there is no part of the Bible that has been determined to be
    incorrect. There have been many men who believed something was
    incorrect, but after serious investigation it was found to be correct.
    It has always been man's mind that has been incorrect and I suspect
    that is the way it will continue.
  4. Maryland
    Joined
    10 Jun '05
    Moves
    110489
    25 Jun '11 20:21
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    So far, there is no part of the Bible that has been determined to be
    incorrect. There have been many men who believed something was
    incorrect, but after serious investigation it was found to be correct.
    It has always been man's mind that has been incorrect and I suspect
    that is the way it will continue.
    That is not true. For example, the bible in different places name different people from whom Jesus descended. Thus, using the bible itself as proof, one part at least must be wrong. Also the bible states that Jesus will return in the life time of at least some of those who were alive at the resurrection. This obviously is wrong. There are hundreds of examples.🙂
  5. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    25 Jun '11 20:28
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    So far, there is no part of the Bible that has been determined to be
    incorrect. There have been many men who believed something was
    incorrect, but after serious investigation it was found to be correct.
    It has always been man's mind that has been incorrect and I suspect
    that is the way it will continue.
    Which came first - plants or people?
  6. Maryland
    Joined
    10 Jun '05
    Moves
    110489
    25 Jun '11 20:31
    Originally posted by 667joe
    That is not true. For example, the bible in different places name different people from whom Jesus descended. Thus, using the bible itself as proof, one part at least must be wrong. Also the bible states that Jesus will return in the life time of at least some of those who were alive at the resurrection. This obviously is wrong. There are hundreds of examples.🙂
    Your mind is certainly incorrect!
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    25 Jun '11 20:39
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    So far, there is no part of the Bible that has been determined to be
    incorrect. There have been many men who believed something was
    incorrect, but after serious investigation it was found to be correct.
    It has always been man's mind that has been incorrect and I suspect
    that is the way it will continue.
    The problem with such claims is that "The Bible" does not actually exist. There are many different copies (with different text) and many translations, and no actual original. Thus no 'true' Bible can be produced for examination. Further, the Bible is written using language that is subject to interpretation and there is no single 'true' interpretation.
    So I can correctly say that the copy of the Bible that I have contains obvious falsehoods according to my interpretation of the words. You can then say that my copy is incorrect or that my interpretation is incorrect, but neither of us has any way of proving that our copy or our interpretation is 'true'.
  8. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    25 Jun '11 21:18
    Originally posted by 667joe
    That is not true. For example, the bible in different places name different people from whom Jesus descended. Thus, using the bible itself as proof, one part at least must be wrong. Also the bible states that Jesus will return in the life time of at least some of those who were alive at the resurrection. This obviously is wrong. There are hundreds of examples.🙂
    As I previously said, it is your mind that is wrong on both counts due
    to your lak of understanding.
  9. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    25 Jun '11 21:21
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Which came first - plants or people?
    Read Genesis chapter 1 and you will see plants were created by God
    before mankind, with mankind being the last creation of God.
  10. Standard memberRJHinds
    The Near Genius
    Fort Gordon
    Joined
    24 Jan '11
    Moves
    12694
    25 Jun '11 21:23
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    The problem with such claims is that "The Bible" does not actually exist. There are many different copies (with different text) and many translations, and no actual original. Thus no 'true' Bible can be produced for examination. Further, the Bible is written using language that is subject to interpretation and there is no single 'true' interpretation.
    So ...[text shortened]... but neither of us has any way of proving that our copy or our interpretation is 'true'.
    This just proves what I have said. Man's mind is what is incorrect not
    the Holy Bible.
  11. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    25 Jun '11 21:32
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    Read Genesis chapter 1 and you will see plants were created by God
    before mankind, with mankind being the last creation of God.
    In Genesis 2 it says that people came first.

    http://www.bricktestament.com/genesis/the_garden_of_eden/01_gn02_04-05.html
  12. St. Peter's
    Joined
    06 Dec '10
    Moves
    11308
    25 Jun '11 22:02
    Originally posted by RJHinds
    So far, there is no part of the Bible that has been determined to be
    incorrect. There have been many men who believed something was
    incorrect, but after serious investigation it was found to be correct.
    It has always been man's mind that has been incorrect and I suspect
    that is the way it will continue.
    There is nothing incorrect in the bible. Many parts are allegory or folk lore, that doesn't make the bible wrong, false or incorrect, they just have to be read in context.

    As far as Jesus' geneology: Two different branches were given. The Luke geneology is supposed to represent Mary's lineage, while the Matthew geneology represented Joseph's.
  13. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    25 Jun '11 22:39
    Originally posted by 667joe
    Once one determines that part of the bible is incorrect, that person would have to assume that other parts of the bible may also be not correct. One would also have to realize the possibility, that, (considering the claim that the bible is divine), that the bible is not divine after all.
    While there are factions, the official mainstream RCC position has moved toward the idea that the Bible is inerrant with respect to matters of faith, morality, and salvation, without the need to assert as an article of faith required for salvation, that it is inerrant with respect to human history and science.
  14. Maryland
    Joined
    10 Jun '05
    Moves
    110489
    25 Jun '11 23:40
    Originally posted by Doward
    There is nothing incorrect in the bible. Many parts are allegory or folk lore, that doesn't make the bible wrong, false or incorrect, they just have to be read in context.

    As far as Jesus' geneology: Two different branches were given. The Luke geneology is supposed to represent Mary's lineage, while the Matthew geneology represented Joseph's.
    Your statement is not true.
  15. Maryland
    Joined
    10 Jun '05
    Moves
    110489
    25 Jun '11 23:42
    Originally posted by JS357
    While there are factions, the official mainstream RCC position has moved toward the idea that the Bible is inerrant with respect to matters of faith, morality, and salvation, without the need to assert as an article of faith required for salvation, that it is inerrant with respect to human history and science.
    Again, if the provable parts are wrong, why should we accept the unprovable parts as correct? It's not too smart to do!
Back to Top