25 Jun 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo far, there is no part of the Bible that has been determined to be
Well, the Bible is an artificial collection of separate books. I think each book should be considered independently.
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.
25 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThat 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.🙂
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.
25 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsWhich came first - plants or people?
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.
25 Jun 11
Originally posted by 667joeYour mind is certainly incorrect!
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.🙂
25 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThe 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 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.
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'.
25 Jun 11
Originally posted by 667joeAs I previously said, it is your mind that is wrong on both counts due
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.🙂
to your lak of understanding.
25 Jun 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis just proves what I have said. Man's mind is what is incorrect not
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'.
the Holy Bible.
25 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThere 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.
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.
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.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
25 Jun 11
Originally posted by 667joeWhile 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.
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.
25 Jun 11
Originally posted by DowardYour statement is not true.
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.
25 Jun 11
Originally posted by JS357Again, if the provable parts are wrong, why should we accept the unprovable parts as correct? It's not too smart to do!
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.