On 26 Apr 2007 15:45:38 -0700, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 26 Apr, 19:58, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

On 26 Apr 2007 01:23:44 -0700, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

However, the way I see it is if you take the Bible literally it is not
error free and it does contain much that conflicts with science.
Can anyone prove otherwise?

The bible is the revealed Word of God but written in the hand of man. Man used
many of his own stories to present the revelations. God's word is inerrant, not
man's attempt to present it.

So the Bible is wrong is what you are suggesting, yes?

No, but neither is it literally true throughout. It is inerrant where it comes
to God's plan for man's redemption from sin and salvation of his soul.

And that is literally true.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

On 26 Apr 2007 15:45:38 -0700, SJAB1958 <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 26 Apr, 19:58, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

On 26 Apr 2007 01:23:44 -0700, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

However, the way I see it is if you take the Bible literally it is not
error free and it does contain much that conflicts with science.
Can anyone prove otherwise?

The bible is the revealed Word of God but written in the hand of man.
Man used
many of his own stories to present the revelations. God's word is
inerrant, not
man's attempt to present it.

So the Bible is wrong is what you are suggesting, yes?

No, but neither is it literally true throughout. It is inerrant where it
comes
to God's plan for man's redemption from sin and salvation of his soul.

And that is literally true.

On 26 Apr 2007 15:45:38 -0700, SJAB1958 <balfres@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 26 Apr, 19:58, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:

On 26 Apr 2007 01:23:44 -0700, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

However, the way I see it is if you take the Bible literally it is not
error free and it does contain much that conflicts with science.
Can anyone prove otherwise?

The bible is the revealed Word of God but written in the hand of man. Man used
many of his own stories to present the revelations. God's word is inerrant, not
man's attempt to present it.

So the Bible is wrong is what you are suggesting, yes?

No, but neither is it literally true throughout. It is inerrant where it comes
to God's plan for man's redemption from sin and salvation of his soul.

And that is literally true.

On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 04:32:24 GMT,

The bible is the revealed Word of God but written in the hand of man. Man
used
many of his own stories to present the revelations. God's word is
inerrant, not
man's attempt to present it.

Would you expand on this please. Is, or is not, that book commonly labeled
"The Bible" inerrant or not? If so, in all versions or a particular
version? Why?

1. The bible was revealed to mankind over thousands of years. God revealed
that which is germane to mankind's salvation. Man was the one doing the
writing. So the revelations of God are written down, but in stories and events
that are not necessarily literally true but are reflective of the way the writer
presented his story.

2. For instance, introductions to Genesis openly admit that the first 11
chapters are as follows:

Reference the Luke genealogy of Jesus, Catholic Study Bible, St. Jerome Edition,
the bible clearly states the following in the introduction to Genesis:

"The time period of Chapters 1 through 11 of Genesis takes us back to the very
beginnings of things. It must never be forgotten, however, that Chapters 1-11
are not a scientific account of the beginnings of the universe or of life. They
are Israel's faith statement of God's activity in the origins of the universe
and of mankind."

Google search on "prehistory of genesis 1-11"

*****http://startthinking.homestead.com/files/Genesis_Paper.doc

So Pius XII suggests to exegetes a daring synthesis with respect to a
hermeneutic of Genesis ch. 1- 11: the first eleven chapters of the book of
Genesis employ simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of an
uncultured people to express those truths of history fundamental to our
salvation. In short, there is a solid core of history, as it were, buried under
the language and popular mentality of the ancient Hebrew.

What is that core of historical fact in Genesis 1 - 11? The Pontifical Biblical
Commission in 1909 gives the following answer, which has never been withdrawn in
any way since 1909. James Stenson says " the official document states that the
literal historical meaning of the first three chapters of Genesis could not be
doubted in regard to":
1.) the creation of all things by God at the beginning of time
2.) the special creation of man
3.) the formation of the first woman from the first man
4.) the unity of the human race
5.) the original happiness of our first parents in the state of justice,
integrity, and immortality
6.) the command given by God to man to test his obedience
7.) the transgression of the divine command at the instigation of the devil
under the form of a serpent
8.) the degradation of our first parents from that primeval state of innocence
9.) the promise of a future redeemer.

With respect to any other dimension of Genesis 1-3, the literal sense must be
examined more fully by exegetes. So 1 - 9 form the historical core of truths
fundamental to our faith expressed in Genesis ch. 1- 3, the truths around which
the ancient Hebraic authors either elaborated a story or collected a popular
tradition or recorded a primitive pre-history.

*****http://books.google.com/books?id=WPt7NB9GFu0C&pg=PA63&lpg=PA63&dq=
prehistory+of+genesis+%221+11%22&source=web&ots=k965YPQn2A&sig=
T1YPXZ12c_rpgMLBR6EjvD6TiFk#PPA63,M1

"Genesis 1-11 is called prehistory because it predates any history of Israelite
history; it is actually a theological preface to the whole of salvation
history."
*****

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

On 26 Apr 2007 21:00:40 -0700, Harry K <turnkey4...@hotmail.com> wrote:

The bible is the revealed Word of God but written in the hand of man. Man used
many of his own stories to present the revelations. God's word is inerrant, not
man's attempt to present it.

Well, I guess that is one way to avoid admitting the obvious errors in
the bible.

Like what?

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****

On Apr 27, 12:55 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 27 Apr, 04:21, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:

On Apr 26, 4:23 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

In Genesis chapter one we are told that the firmament separated the
waters above from the waters below and that the stars, the sun, and
the moon are set in this firmament, which God called heaven.

In Genesis chapter seven we are told that the windows of heaven were
opened and that the rain fell for forty days and forty nights.

But surely this can't be right, because if you take this literally it
is suggesting that the rain fell from above the location of the stars,
the sun, and the moon.

The "windows of heaven" mean the sky.

I respectfully suggest that you go look at those chapters again, which
if as most Biblical Literalists usually claim were all written by
Moses, this being so the meaning of the word heaven is the label given
to the firmament in which the stars, the sun, and the moon were set,
so the windows of heaven must also be set in the firmament, logical
conclusion being - if one takes the Bible literally - the waters above
the firmanent are above the stars, the sun, and the moon.

Nope - common sense tells us it refers to the sky.
Where does rain come from?

On Apr 27, 12:55 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 27 Apr, 04:21, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:

On Apr 26, 4:23 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

In Genesis chapter one we are told that the firmament separated the
waters above from the waters below and that the stars, the sun, and
the moon are set in this firmament, which God called heaven.

In Genesis chapter seven we are told that the windows of heaven were
opened and that the rain fell for forty days and forty nights.

But surely this can't be right, because if you take this literally it
is suggesting that the rain fell from above the location of the stars,
the sun, and the moon.

The "windows of heaven" mean the sky.

I respectfully suggest that you go look at those chapters again, which
if as most Biblical Literalists usually claim were all written by
Moses, this being so the meaning of the word heaven is the label given
to the firmament in which the stars, the sun, and the moon were set,
so the windows of heaven must also be set in the firmament, logical
conclusion being - if one takes the Bible literally - the waters above
the firmanent are above the stars, the sun, and the moon.

Nope - common sense tells us it refers to the sky.
Where does rain come from?

Now some people tell us that the Bible is the inerrant 'Word of God'
that it should be interpreted literally and that there is nothing in
it that conflicts with science.

However, the way I see it is if you take the Bible literally it is not
error free and it does contain much that conflicts with science.

Can anyone prove otherwise?

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 27, 12:55 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 27 Apr, 04:21, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:

On Apr 26, 4:23 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

In Genesis chapter one we are told that the firmament separated the
waters above from the waters below and that the stars, the sun, and
the moon are set in this firmament, which God called heaven.

In Genesis chapter seven we are told that the windows of heaven were
opened and that the rain fell for forty days and forty nights.

But surely this can't be right, because if you take this literally it
is suggesting that the rain fell from above the location of the stars,
the sun, and the moon.

The "windows of heaven" mean the sky.

I respectfully suggest that you go look at those chapters again, which
if as most Biblical Literalists usually claim were all written by
Moses, this being so the meaning of the word heaven is the label given
to the firmament in which the stars, the sun, and the moon were set,
so the windows of heaven must also be set in the firmament, logical
conclusion being - if one takes the Bible literally - the waters above
the firmanent are above the stars, the sun, and the moon.

Nope - common sense tells us it refers to the sky.
Where does rain come from?

On Apr 27, 12:55 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 27 Apr, 04:21, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:

On Apr 26, 4:23 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

In Genesis chapter one we are told that the firmament separated the
waters above from the waters below and that the stars, the sun, and
the moon are set in this firmament, which God called heaven.

In Genesis chapter seven we are told that the windows of heaven were
opened and that the rain fell for forty days and forty nights.

But surely this can't be right, because if you take this literally it
is suggesting that the rain fell from above the location of the stars,
the sun, and the moon.

The "windows of heaven" mean the sky.

I respectfully suggest that you go look at those chapters again, which
if as most Biblical Literalists usually claim were all written by
Moses, this being so the meaning of the word heaven is the label given
to the firmament in which the stars, the sun, and the moon were set,
so the windows of heaven must also be set in the firmament, logical
conclusion being - if one takes the Bible literally - the waters above
the firmanent are above the stars, the sun, and the moon.

Nope - common sense tells us it refers to the sky.
Where does rain come from?

Now some people tell us that the Bible is the inerrant 'Word of God'
that it should be interpreted literally and that there is nothing in
it that conflicts with science.

However, the way I see it is if you take the Bible literally it is not
error free and it does contain much that conflicts with science.

Can anyone prove otherwise?

- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 27, 12:55 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

On 27 Apr, 04:21, Ian Chua <i...@purdue.edu> wrote:

On Apr 26, 4:23 am, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:

In Genesis chapter one we are told that the firmament separated the
waters above from the waters below and that the stars, the sun, and
the moon are set in this firmament, which God called heaven.

In Genesis chapter seven we are told that the windows of heaven were
opened and that the rain fell for forty days and forty nights.

But surely this can't be right, because if you take this literally it
is suggesting that the rain fell from above the location of the stars,
the sun, and the moon.

The "windows of heaven" mean the sky.

I respectfully suggest that you go look at those chapters again, which
if as most Biblical Literalists usually claim were all written by
Moses, this being so the meaning of the word heaven is the label given
to the firmament in which the stars, the sun, and the moon were set,
so the windows of heaven must also be set in the firmament, logical
conclusion being - if one takes the Bible literally - the waters above
the firmanent are above the stars, the sun, and the moon.

Nope - common sense tells us it refers to the sky.
Where does rain come from?

The "windows of heaven" mean the sky.

Nope - common sense tells us it refers to the sky.
Where does rain come from?