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.
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.
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.🙂
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.
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.🙂
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
25 Jun '11 19:33
Correctness
Back to Top