Is the bible Gods word?

[dunsapy]

This can be a large topic, because there are many ways to check the bible. From archeology, science, creation, history , prophesies, and what the bible says about itself.( is it full of contradictions?) etc. I certainly don't know everything. And some things are not fully explained in the bible ( or certain usage of words or meanings have been forgotten over time) . But there certainly is enough information to know if the bible is Gods word or not.

[Cathar1950]

Yes it is and it is a metaphor, you don't take metaphors literally.
God the son is a metaphor as is God the father.
God as friend is also a metaphor.
Mystics would understand the metaphor of God as lover.
God as mother is also a metaphor.
It seems to me that when you take any of theses metaphors, as did the gospel writers, literally, you commit a form of idolatry and when you call t a mystery you are just being redundant and begging the question.

You mean sort of like science and evolution.

No, not at all.
You would find analogy in science and the science of evolution but your analogy is flawed and reaching for some imaginary problem you have in your conceptions.

[dunsapy]

No, not at all.
You would find analogy in science and the science of evolution but your analogy is flawed and reaching for some imaginary problem you have in your conceptions.

Actually science is a about proof which they have none. so far it is only talk. Or stories.
Does science even know if life could start on it's own? Without intelligence or from other life.
Until science can solve that all the rest is myth.
If science does it in a lab all that proves is it took a creator to do it. (creation)

[Cathar1950]

No, not at all.
You would find analogy in science and the science of evolution but your analogy is flawed and reaching for some imaginary problem you have in your conceptions.

Actually science is a about proof which they have none. so far it is only talk. Or stories.
Does science even know if life could start on it's own? Without intelligence or from other life.
Until science can solve that all the rest is myth.
If science does it in a lab all that proves is it took a creator to do it. (creation)

If it is about proof and they had none then it wouldn't be science.
It is obvious you don't understand science any more then you understand how God did it.
So far you are all talk and not doing well in that area either. Do you know how God created life on this planet some 3 billion years ago?
The Bible can't even get the last 10,000 years right.
We are not talking about how life got started when we talk about evolution, we are talking about how it has changed over eons of time.
We can see all the building blocks of life in nature. You can't explain how God even make the building blocks where we can see how they formed.
If science did it in the lab then it shows it can be done naturally and we have created conditions for life to happen where you can't even show how or what God actually did. We are nature and if we do it without supernatural intervention then it is natural and we show that God wasn't needed for life to have been created.
Of course God is the new kid on the block and for many thousands of years humans worshiped the Goddess that created all of life. In fact your Bible does give us a hint about our ancient beliefs when they call Eve "the Mother of all living".

[dunsapy]

If it is about proof and they had none then it wouldn't be science.

That is absolutely correct. That is the problem. If science followed science in this case, there would be no problem. They have no proof if life, could even start on it own from the elements of the ground. They have tried to force it in a lab, they have never seen it happen. If they find out there is no possible way for life to start that way, then all this talk about evolution is just fantasy. Because they have never seen that either.

It is obvious you don't understand science any more then you understand how God did it.

We are not asking God how he did it, or is he telling us. That is what science took on for themselves.

So far you are all talk and not doing well in that area either. Do you know how God created life on this planet some 3 billion years ago?
The Bible can't even get the last 10,000 years right.
We are not talking about how life got started when we talk about evolution, we are talking about how it has changed over eons of time.
We can see all the building blocks of life in nature. You can't explain how God even make the building blocks where we can see how they formed.
If science did it in the lab then it shows it can be done naturally and we have created conditions for life to happen where you can't even show how or what God actually did. We are nature and if we do it without supernatural intervention then it is natural and we show that God wasn't needed for life to have been created.
Of course God is the new kid on the block and for many thousands of years humans worshiped the Goddess that created all of life. In fact your Bible does give us a hint about our ancient beliefs when they call Eve "the Mother of all living".

The bible has no problem with the earth or even creation of life that is very old. The bible does not conflict with that.
For people being confused about who God is and all the religions that have been on the earth, I understand that. Satan's whole purpose is to mislead, in what ever way he can.

In recent years, scientists have researched human genes extensively. By comparing human genetic patterns around the earth, they found clear evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, a source of the DNA of all people who have ever lived, including each of us. In 1988, Newsweek magazine presented those findings in a report entitled “The Search for Adam and Eve.� Those studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female. Reports in 1995 about research on male DNA point to the same conclusion—that “there was an ancestral ‘Adam,’ whose genetic material on the [Y] chromosome is common to every man now on earth,� as Time magazine put it.
Now I understand science has come up with different theroies on this. So can you trust science.

[byofrcs]

If it is about proof and they had none then it wouldn't be science.

That is absolutely correct. That is the problem. If science followed science in this case, there would be no problem. They have no proof if life, could even start on it own from the elements of the ground. They have tried to force it in a lab, they have never seen it happen. If they find out there is no possible way for life to start that way, then all this talk about evolution is just fantasy. Because they have never seen that either.

Haven't worked out if it is a 45 or a 33 1/3 yet but given "Evolution is simply a change in frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population" I have trouble working out how you see this as fantasy.

Are you a clone of your parents ? If not then what exactly has changed between you and your parents if it was not the genes ?

Discussing abiogenesis isn't going to change the fact, unfortunate as it may appear, that you are the offspring of your parents rather than a clone.

It is obvious you don't understand science any more then you understand how God did it.

We are not asking God how he did it, or is he telling us. That is what science took on for themselves.

So far you are all talk and not doing well in that area either. Do you know how God created life on this planet some 3 billion years ago?
The Bible can't even get the last 10,000 years right.
We are not talking about how life got started when we talk about evolution, we are talking about how it has changed over eons of time.
We can see all the building blocks of life in nature. You can't explain how God even make the building blocks where we can see how they formed.
If science did it in the lab then it shows it can be done naturally and we have created conditions for life to happen where you can't even show how or what God actually did. We are nature and if we do it without supernatural intervention then it is natural and we show that God wasn't needed for life to have been created.
Of course God is the new kid on the block and for many thousands of years humans worshiped the Goddess that created all of life. In fact your Bible does give us a hint about our ancient beliefs when they call Eve "the Mother of all living".

The bible has no problem with the earth or even creation of life that is very old. The bible does not conflict with that.
For people being confused about who God is and all the religions that have been on the earth, I understand that. Satan's whole purpose is to mislead, in what ever way he can.

In recent years, scientists have researched human genes extensively. By comparing human genetic patterns around the earth, they found clear evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, a source of the DNA of all people who have ever lived, including each of us. In 1988, Newsweek magazine presented those findings in a report entitled “The Search for Adam and Eve.� Those studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female. Reports in 1995 about research on male DNA point to the same conclusion—that “there was an ancestral ‘Adam,’ whose genetic material on the [Y] chromosome is common to every man now on earth,� as Time magazine put it.
Now I understand science has come up with different theroies on this. So can you trust science.

From Wikipedia,

"Y-chromosomal Adam probably lived between 60,000 and 90,000 years ago, judging from molecular clock and genetic marker studies"

and from Wikipedia,

"Probabilistic studies, place her around 140,000 BP, in the lower range of the error margin given by both genetic studies mentioned ....."

Simple maths says that she would be a rather saggy and dry 50,000 year old. That has to be the nastiest granny-porn yet. Only a miracle of blind faith could marry those two into a creation story.

[McCulloch]

The bible has no problem with the earth or even creation of life that is very old. The bible does not conflict with that.

Please explain it to me. The writers of the Bible have been very specific with their time line. The ages of various individuals when each of their sons was born is given. From all that, allowing for the maximum margin of error, according to the Biblical account, the first human (Adam) could not have been in existence before 8,000 years ago. Would you like to see the details?

[dunsapy]

Please explain it to me. The writers of the Bible have been very specific with their time line. The ages of various individuals when each of their sons was born is given. From all that, allowing for the maximum margin of error, according to the Biblical account, the first human (Adam) could not have been in existence before 8,000 years ago. Would you like to see the details?

So are you saying there is a real Adam? Adam of the bible? The one that was created by God?

[McCulloch]

Please explain it to me. The writers of the Bible have been very specific with their time line. The ages of various individuals when each of their sons was born is given. From all that, allowing for the maximum margin of error, according to the Biblical account, the first human (Adam) could not have been in existence before 8,000 years ago. Would you like to see the details?

So are you saying there is a real Adam? Adam of the bible? The one that was created by God?

No. I am saying that the writers of Genesis were very clear that they believed that there was a real succession of individuals, with names and ages, right back to Adam who was created by God. I think that they may have been sincere in their beliefs, but that they were also wrong.

Take this passage, for example:

Eber lived thirty-four years, and became the father of Peleg; [...]

Now, I will admit that I am a person who lacks spiritual insight, but I read this passage and I see but one meaning. According to the writer, there was a fellow named Eber who was thirty-four years old when his son Peleg was born. Do you see any other meaning that the writer may have been trying to convey? Is there anything in the context that would lead you to believe that the writer did not believe that Eber existed and was thirty-four years old when Peleg was born?

[dunsapy]

Now, I will admit that I am a person who lacks spiritual insight, but I read this passage and I see but one meaning. According to the writer, there was a fellow named Eber who was thirty-four years old when his son Peleg was born. Do you see any other meaning that the writer may have been trying to convey? Is there anything in the context that would lead you to believe that the writer did not believe that Eber existed and was thirty-four years old when Peleg was born?

I'm not sure what your getting at here? Why does this matter.?

[McCulloch]

Now, I will admit that I am a person who lacks spiritual insight, but I read this passage and I see but one meaning. According to the writer, there was a fellow named Eber who was thirty-four years old when his son Peleg was born. Do you see any other meaning that the writer may have been trying to convey? Is there anything in the context that would lead you to believe that the writer did not believe that Eber existed and was thirty-four years old when Peleg was born?

I'm not sure what your getting at here? Why does this matter.?

It is by linking a number of such rather mundane passages of scripture that one gets to the conclusion that, according to the writers of the Bible, humans have not been in existence for more than 8,000 years. If you claim that humans have existed for more than 8,000 years, then you have to be able to tell me which of the passages in the Bible, like this one, is wrong.