To what extent is the Bible infallible and inerrant?

[Charles Meadows]

Jim,

Please explain how "my scheme of things" limits God. I was not the one on this thread who tried to apply my morality upon God.

No I don't have anything against IFB per se - but I have run into a number of IFBs with whom I've had some significant disagreements.

It seems to me that you have, a priori, decided that the Bible is literally word for word 100% inerrant in everything, including scientific accuracy in everything it describes.

Now you'll get no argument from me regarding the fact that the Bible is perfect in what it attempts to do - but I see very clearly that God has used people to transmit it. And not 20th century people who have knowledge of natural science but people whose culture involved story-telling and religious myth, not scientific study.

It seems to me that since God chose to use people to pen the books and to copy them over and over He would know that the people would use their human language to put it down on paper.

I have no problem with anyone who simply believes Genesis 1 literally because the Bible says so - but I do have a problem with those who would assert that the Bible's very credibility is dependent on whether or not it is literally 100% true! I don't think Moses was concerned at all about the scientific aspects of creation - rather only that God did it! If evolution were 100% proven tomorrow by some strange chance my faith in Christ would not be shaken one iota!

I also agree that God hates sin and judges it! But there are places in the OT where the writings depict God as capricious or anger-filled. That does differ a little from the Father we meet in the Gospels! Of course it's the same God. I think that some of the WORDING in the OT reflects the Israelites attitudes toward God and His judgment. These things have been a stumbling block to many believers as well as many lost who look inward at Christianity!

These things have been well studied by scholars, conservative and liberal. You may disagree completely. That's fine. Perhaps you don't lose a wink of sleep thinking about such things. Count this as a blessing! I have been blessed with a very academically savvy mind - and simple things like blind faith naturally come a little harder!

So what would be my disagreement with what I see as your theology? Tell me if I'm wrong...

It seems that by insisting on the truth of a 100% literal Bible you, a priori, rule out any interpretation that is nonliteral and thus in many cases (I think) rule out the correct interpretation without even CONSIDERING it. Second by insisting that the Bible be 100% literally true and (I assume this is true) staking Christianity's credibility on that being the case you place emphasis on places where it is not due!

The 4,000/40,000 thing. The readings are almost identical but one says 4,000 and the other 40,000. So what if a copyist accidentally slipped - who cares? The message of the Bible is not compromised! So what if the Israelites didn't know that the formula for the circumference of a circle is pi x diameter? That has nothing to do with anything? We shouldn't insist on being able to find little "proofs" for everything in the Bible! Why? Because the "proofs" are often quite obviously a stretch, often downright silly! Is this the intellectual basis we want to show the young inquisitive believer with questions or doubts? No.

I think we should not be afraid to study the Bible using science, archeology, literature etc. Are we afraid that if we sacrifice one traditional doctrine then pretty soon all of them will follow? Do we stand on Christ the solid rock or Christ the slippery rug?

I want to be true to God's word above all.

 

[HankD]

Hank, thanks for your empathy. This is a major interpretative issue with which I am deeply struggling right now, so would appreciate your prayers. I am profoundly troubled in my spirit about these passages.

Bro Matt, I have walked with the Lord for over 40 years and perhaps it won't surprise you that I had this same struggle (amongst others). Ultimately I yielded to the literal meaning of the Scriptures concerning the severity of His retribution.

These are two passages which I believe the Lord provided me:

Psalm 46:10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.

Genesis 18:25 ...Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

I will pray...

HankD

 

[Bro. James]

Bad stuff happens--to everybody--

Ever since the Fall.

Were it not for the Grace of God, everyone--man, woman, child would perish because of SIN.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[DavidFWhite3]

Originally posted by Bluefalcon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DavidFWhite3:
The historical fact is the Hebrews committed genocide on occasions. The particualr writers of the passages that deal with those accounts tell us it was their belief that God wanted them to slaughter the entire population of cities, including children. Because of Jesus I think they were attributing to God something he might not wanted to have been given credit for.

So the true prophets' testimony who said these nations were wiped out because of their iniquities is true or false? And Jeremiah's testimony that Judah would be sacked because of it's iniquities is true or not? According to you, the reasons given by the prophets in the Bible are made up unless they align up to what you decide is proper within your own understanding of Jesus Christ, but in fact you're left with not even knowing if Christ's revelation is true or not in all its particulars, because it may well have been made up by the founders of the Christian religion. And what you're left with is a religion where truth and standards of faith and practice are decided by oneself with the limited corroboration of Scripture.

Yours,

Bluefalcon </font>[/QUOTE]Not al all. I believe as Baptists believed for centuries, that Jesus Christ is the criterion by which all scripture is to be interpreted. I fully accept what the Gospels give us about Jesus, and because of that, I do not believe that some of the OT writers were correct. Jesus himself took issue with them himself. Once again I ask you to simply read Matthew chapter five and engage me in conversation about some things Jesus said on this very subject.

Thank you,
Dave

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Bro. James:
Bad stuff happens--to everybody-- Ever since the Fall.

Don't forget, Satan was present before the Fall, and started tossing bad stuff at man before we fell.

Were it not for the Grace of God, everyone--man, woman, child would perish because of SIN.

Amen, preach it!

 

[av1611jim]

Charles; For the sake of saving space, I will not "quote your post" and insert my comments. Instead I will take your comments paragraph by paragrah and answer them in order. You may then refer to your post to see what I am talking about, ok?

1. Yes, by default, I do consider the Bible to be 100% inerrant. Including science. With the understanding that does not mean literal in some cases. (see the silly "sunset"-"stand still" objection).
2. God did indeed use people who lived during a time of "religious myth". That has not changed since Genesis. We live today amidst tons of "religious myth". This fact in no way limited God's oversight on what He wanted the pen-men to write. There is no "religious myth" used to teach anything about God in the Bible. You may disagree. Ok.
3. God did allow for the usage of folks' own language and style in penning Scripture. But He did not allow any infusion of "myth".

4. I do not understand how you can do this. Without a literal Genesis we have no Infinite God.
In the first 5 words of the Bible you have the most powerful literal statement of the infinite living God. It totally rules out evolution. Should evolution be proven true, irrefutably true, I would give up, for it would destroy God's creative power. God spoke and it came into being. Immediately. If that didn't happen then God is not.
5. I disagree that the wording of the OT in places shows God as capricious or anger filled. That is if you imply that God changes his mind impulsively Or that His anger against sin overpowers His justice or love. I understand that these attributes of God are difficult to grasp. By no means do I have it all figured out either. (For example Sovereignity and Free will). But I don't think re-inventing God is the answer. I, too, have a highly intellectual capacity. (some disagree with that! ) Somewhere in my life God granted me peace in this area. (OT judgements against whole people groups)
6.a.I don't automatically rule out any non-literal interpretation. But I do interpret literally unless the context obviously prevents such a view.
6.b. Perhaps the perception of where empahsis is due, is just that; perception. Where you may see allegory, I see literal. OTOH, we may agree in some places to the allegory. For example, "Our God is a consuming fire" is allegory. But the Truth of it is literal. Does that help any?
7.a. The 4000/40,000 thing is not about the numbers. I think that is where the misunderstanding comes in. The solution lies in the prepositions "of", and "for". So, in my view, by ascribing scribal error, we impugn the ability of God to protect His words. (of course, you may rightly assume my KJV stance here. I believe it is valid however.)
7.b. The 10 cubit/30 cubit thing. I would not be so quick to assume that the Israelites did not know pi. Remember they came from 400 years of being in Egypt as slaves. It is thought they had a hand in building many structures in that land. Why would they not know many mathematical formulas? It is obvious the Egyptians knew the formulas. Why would they not have had Hebrew slaves who also knew them? You will also find that the men Moses chose to build the temple were experts in many crafts. Why not allow the same for Solomon's men?
And finally; please do not assume that I am not willing to abandon certain long held and loved doctrines. For proof of such, please check out some of the Millenial Kingdom threads. I just came into believing certain things about it just this year. And that is after 20+ years of being saved. I am always willing to learn. And I am always willing to use science or archeology or mathematics in learning all I can of our Great God. But I will not replace Biblical truth with them.
I, too, stand on Christ the solid Rock. ("slippery rug"

)
By all means, let us be true to God. We can only do so if we are willing to be true to the plain, natural, reading of His Book.(IMHO) But let's not throw out our intellect in doing so.
Brother, I do understand the struggle with which you have described. I struggled in other areas, no less difficult for me. You do have my understanding, (even if it does not appear as such,

).

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[Marcia]

Marcia, with respect, you ARE interpreting the Bible; your interpretation is the fundamentalist, literalist ('plain' in your words) interpretation, mine is the more allegorical. I have thrown nothing out of the OT, I and many others merely interpret it differently, and I happen to think that that interpretation is more consistent with the rest of Scripture and in particular the Gospels' revelation of Jesus, God-Love Incarnate. Now, if you like, we can sit around and hurl 'labels' at each other - 'liberal', 'neo-orthodox', 'post-evangelical' and 'fundamentalist', 'legalist' 'literalist' etc - but that achieves little except to raise our blood pressures and contributes nothing to the discussion.

I am not hurling, nor did I hurl, labels, so that part of your post is moot. BTW, those of us who believe Gen. and what are known as the historical books of the OT are literal are not taking the whole Bible literally. That is a straw man and I think you know that.

I am not imposing any "fundamentalist" interpretation on the Bible, only the principles of sound hermeneutics. Interpreting any piece of writing -- Bible or otherwise -- involves context, and looking at the grammar, style, history, culture, etc. but whatever is written is taken the way it is presented unless factors indicate otherwise.

The majority of Christians I know (none of whom are IFB since I don't personally know any IFB people - only on this Board do I know any), including my pastors, seminary profs, and several scholars (from many denominations) believe the style and context of accounts in the Torah, in Judges, Joshua, 1 and 2 Sam, 1 and 2 Kings, etc., for example, are literal historical narrative. There is nothing in the style or context to indicate otherwise. God does not play games with us and does hide truth in puzzles.

Concerning the accounts in Joshua, 1 and 2 Samuel, etc., how can you decide some of it is "allegory" and some of it is historical? Do you think none of it is historical? Then you have to throw out King David.

If you decide some of it is historical but other parts are not (such as the battles being led by God), then how do you determine that, because it's not there in a literary or contextual way to split apart some events in those books from others. You have to decide which parts you don't want to believe - that is the only basis. There is no sound hermeneutical principle to take the narrative accounts in Joshua or 1 Sam., let's say, as literal, and other parts as not literal.

I gave the example of 1 Sam 15. Which parts of that do you believe as true and which not, and why?

 

[Marcia]

To get out of debating back and forth, I'd like to just post some thoughts here that hopefully are helpful and are not in any way accusatory. So please take them in that spirit.

The issue here for some appears to be not wanting to believe God would have so many people, including babies, killed. But if we understand God as righteous and holy and that He cannot abide sin, we see the justice of this.

I also had trouble with these passages as a new believer so, believe it or not, I empathize. (BTW, I just turned 14 yrs. old in the Lord a few days ago!).

What helped me deal with them were several things, but one was seeing the holiness of God n the OT. Apart from the prophecies of the Messiah and God's plan of redemption of man in the OT, I think the OT is primarily showing us the holiness of God. How could Jesus come along and speak of casting people out into the outer darkness and how who those who did not trust him would "perish" and how only eternal life is avaiable through Christ if God's holiness had not been established first?

I have had to take a stand on this in my ministry as I deal with unbelievers on an almost daily basis. Many of them ask outright about if I believe in hell, and they are good at detecting if you waffle on the "hell" issue. And if you waffle, you lose the clear testimony man's sin and of Christ as Redeemer, and often you lose the respect of the unbelievers, believe it or not.

If the God we know and serve is truly just, then none of those killings in the OT (or the future casting into the lake of fire of the unsaved) is unjust. I trust God's justice and mercy. Jesus showed God's mercy because He announced and made possible the clear way to the Father and to redemption, but the NT is just as clear on Jesus as the righteous Judge and that He will slay the wicked (see previous posting with Rev. passage about the amoun of blood resulting from His slaying -- visionary but it presents truth).

We cannot have a God of love without the God of justice and holiness. To deny the righteous judgment of God on the wicked is to undermine the cost of suffering of Jesus, done out of love, on the cross for our redemption. They go together.

As far as the babies are concerned, I have no easy answer but I do tend to believe that babies go to heaven by God's grace (that's another discussion -- see Ronald Nash's book, When A Child Dies , if you want a look at that topic.

However, my discomfort with babies being killed along with others in those OT battles cannot keep me from believing and trusting God's word, because I cannot impose my ideas of what is fair on God. He is far more just than I would or could be. I have found I can stand on the clear statements of God's word and that they hold me up every time, whether I am dealing with Wiccans, Satanists, New Agers, Goths, atheists, cutlists or others. I am able to proclaim the love and holiness of God as we know Him through Jesus Christ.

 

[Marcia]

Correction on title of Ronald Nash's book: It's When A Baby Dies, published by Zondervan. I meant to check the title before I posted and forgot.

 

[Charles Meadows]

Jim,

Thanks for your kind and reasonable reply. Yep none of us have it all figured out yet! I just have an insatiable desire to learn about God and His word - even if it means going against the grain. And I'm make no claim to be any more discerning than any other believer.

It's interesting that we all are given different gifts. I really wish blind faith came easy to me! In truth it is such a blessing for a man to be able to say, "I don't understand but I just believe!" It really is! My mind has always asked, "Why why why?"

I guess the reason I end of in these debates alot is because I want to be able to make the best defense of the faith to those who ask the tough questions.

Have a blessed Christmas.

C Meadows

 

[Marcia]

Charles, I know you are addressing Jim, but you used the term "blind faith" and I want to clarify that I dislike that term, do not believe in it, and do not have it.

The more I worshipped God and the more I read and studied His word with a desire to truly know God and let Christ live through me (not live for Christ), the more I saw the truth of His word. It does not start or end with blind faith. Keep in mind I was an absolute scoffer of Jesus as Savior and the Bible. I used to quote the Bible for my New Age articles! Education was the most valued thing in my family (both of my parents were Phi Beta Kappa), and I did not want to believe certain things in the Bible.

As you say, you want to make the "best defense" to those with tough questions. I do, too, and I do this to an extent in my ministry (not saying I make the best defense but I try for it). The more I respond to these questions, the more I find I can trust in God's word as truth. Did you read my post above?

 

[Charles Meadows]

Marcia,

Yes that was addressed to Jim. Strong faith comes more easily to some than others. That's just a fact. Some people are book smart, some are mechanically inclined. Personalities are different - that's just a fact. The jourbey to a strong faith has been a longer one for me than for many others. But I'm thankful that I habe made it.

 

[DavidFWhite3]

Let me ask some questions and I hope to get some answers. But before I do, let me make it once again perfectly clear that I believe in the God the Bible is all about,the Jesus the NT is all about, and that this Jesus is the only sure way to know this God and have the life He gives in this world, and eternal life as well.

If the Bible is perfect it must be consistent. Agreed?

Therefore, without re-writing the texts, explain just three problematic texts without refering to possible copyist errors, for there is no way a copyist error could account for these obvious inconsistencies.

1. Genesis 1 has the plants and animals made before the humans. Chapter two has the plants and animals made afterward. (Please just read the text as it is and you will see this is true.)

2. Matthew has Joseph and Mary living in Bethlehem and going to Nazareth, after the journey to Egypt, to avoid the dangers presented by Herod's sons. Luke has Joseph and Mary being from Nazareth. They go to Bethlehem to register for the tax and as a result Jesus is born in the manger, then they return to Nazareth with no journey to Egypt. A literal reading of the text makes it very hard to synchronise the two stories.

3. Matthew 27:3-10 CLEARLY states that Judas gave his blood money back to the chief priests and elders, and they used the money to buy a potters field. Then Judas went out and hung himself. Acts 1:18 tells us that Judas bought a field with the money and fell headlong and his bowels burst open.

I could go on with other examples but only one is needed. Now please dear Brothers and Sisters, do not be angry with me for simply pointing to what the texts actually say. But I hope that this is clear enough for us to see that the Bible does not have to be perfect for it to lead us to a perfect God, and a perfect Savior.

Awaiting your response,
Dave

 

[Bluefalcon]

Originally posted by DavidFWhite3:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bluefalcon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DavidFWhite3:
The historical fact is the Hebrews committed genocide on occasions. The particualr writers of the passages . . . were attributing to God something he might not wanted to have been given credit for.

So the true prophets' testimony who said these nations were wiped out because of their iniquities is true or false? And Jeremiah's testimony that Judah would be sacked because of it's iniquities is true or not? According to you, the reasons given by the prophets in the Bible are made up unless they align up to what you decide is proper within your own understanding of Jesus Christ, but in fact you're left with not even knowing if Christ's revelation is true or not in all its particulars, because it may well have been made up by the founders of the Christian religion. And what you're left with is a religion where truth and standards of faith and practice are decided by oneself with the limited corroboration of Scripture.

Yours,

Bluefalcon </font>[/QUOTE]Not al all. I believe as Baptists believed for centuries, that Jesus Christ is the criterion by which all scripture is to be interpreted. I fully accept what the Gospels give us about Jesus, and because of that, I do not believe that some of the OT writers were correct. Jesus himself took issue with them himself. Once again I ask you to simply read Matthew chapter five and engage me in conversation about some things Jesus said on this very subject.

Thank you,
Dave </font>[/QUOTE]When did Jesus take issue with any of the OT writers? On the divorce issue, he took issue with the hardness of the people's hearts, not Moses. Jesus fulfills the OT law and the prophets! I still don't understand how you know for sure the NT revelation about Jesus is fully accurate if the same Holy Spirit inspired it as he did the OT writers (2 Ti. 3:16; 2 Pe. 1:21). What's the basis of your discrimination in the various accuracies of biblical composers? Once I understand your position I would like to engage in more meaningful dialogue.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

[DavidFWhite3]

Originally posted by Bluefalcon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DavidFWhite3:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bluefalcon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DavidFWhite3:
The historical fact is the Hebrews committed genocide on occasions. The particualr writers of the passages . . . were attributing to God something he might not wanted to have been given credit for.

So the true prophets' testimony who said these nations were wiped out because of their iniquities is true or false? And Jeremiah's testimony that Judah would be sacked because of it's iniquities is true or not? According to you, the reasons given by the prophets in the Bible are made up unless they align up to what you decide is proper within your own understanding of Jesus Christ, but in fact you're left with not even knowing if Christ's revelation is true or not in all its particulars, because it may well have been made up by the founders of the Christian religion. And what you're left with is a religion where truth and standards of faith and practice are decided by oneself with the limited corroboration of Scripture.

Yours,

Bluefalcon </font>[/QUOTE]Not al all. I believe as Baptists believed for centuries, that Jesus Christ is the criterion by which all scripture is to be interpreted. I fully accept what the Gospels give us about Jesus, and because of that, I do not believe that some of the OT writers were correct. Jesus himself took issue with them himself. Once again I ask you to simply read Matthew chapter five and engage me in conversation about some things Jesus said on this very subject.

Thank you,
Dave </font>[/QUOTE]When did Jesus take issue with any of the OT writers? On the divorce issue, he took issue with the hardness of the people's hearts, not Moses. Jesus fulfills the OT law and the prophets! I still don't understand how you know for sure the NT revelation about Jesus is fully accurate if the same Holy Spirit inspired it as he did the OT writers (2 Ti. 3:16; 2 Pe. 1:21). What's the basis of your discrimination in the various accuracies of biblical composers? Once I understand your position I would like to engage in more meaningful dialogue.

Yours,

Bluefalcon </font>[/QUOTE]Bluefalcon:

Once again, I have pointed directly to a very important passage of scripture, Matthew 5, the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus says repeatedly, "You have heard it said (then he quotes OT passages) but I say..."(then proceeds to give us a higher teaching). You ask the question and I give you the answer. Why don't you just look at the texts? In them is your answer.

And again. The issue is how do we rightly divide the Word of Truth? It is by turning to the truth itself, the truth Himself, Jesus. The issue is not our doctine of scripture but our doictrine of Christ. That is how I know, and that is how anyone can know. I honestly think some of you love your doctrine of Biblical infallability more than you love Jesus.

 

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Marcia:
As far as Gen 1 and Gen 2 being two different creation stories, here is another view:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> From
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-c001.html
It has been noted by scholars such as U. Casssuto (1961: 89-92; also Kitchen 1966: 116-17) that Genesis 1 gives a general description of mankind in the framework of the entire creation of the world and Genesis 2 gives a detailed description of humankind and their immediate context on the earth.[7] From a discourse grammatical point of view, this relationship between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 may be explained as a generic-specific relationship (Longacre 1983: 119, 122) and the two constitute a "hyponymous"[8] parallelism, so to speak.

This feature might also be explained as a phenomenon of what Grimes calls a "scope change" in narrative discourse, which is a phenomenon of "zooming in from an overall perspective to a closeup, with a corresponding shift in reference" (1975: 46-47). This is the way I have described the nature of the relationship between the two "creation" stories of Genesis elsewhere (1985); they have different scopes or viewpoints by which the author or narrator describes one and the same creation of mankind, first with relation to the cosmos, and then with a narrower focus on the man's relationship with the woman, the animals, and the environment in the second story. Therefore, the flow of discourse runs from Genesis 1 to Genesis 2 and following, not vice versa, as assumed by the traditional source critics.

As for 2:4, whose two halves constitute a chiastic parallelism, Wenham takes this verse as serving "both as a title to 2:5-4:26 and as a link with the introduction 1:1-2:3.[9] In another context I have suggested that it serves as a link between the two stories and that this linkage is a kind of transitional technique that according to Parunak points to a surface pattern of repetition or similarity that joins successive textual units together (Tsumura 1985: 48; Purunak 1983). Genesis 1-2 could thus be explained as Parunak's A/aB pattern; in 2:4a (a) the narrator repeats the keywords of Genesis 1:1-2:3 (A) and initiates a new section of story, 2:4b-4:26 (B).

</font>[/QUOTE]David, you asked about Gen 1 and 2 on p. 13 of this thread, this is what I posted back on page 14. I am posting another response.

 

[Marcia]

Here's another one from http://www.apologeticspress.org/abdiscr/abdiscr09.html

Although Genesis chapters one and two agree even when yatsar is translated simply “formed” (as we will notice in the remainder of this article), it is important to note that the four Hebrew scholars mentioned above and the translators of the NIV , all believe that it could (or should) be rendered “had formed.” And, as Leupold acknowledged, those who deny this possibility do so (at least partly) because of their insistence on making the two chapters disagree.

The main reason that skeptics do not see harmony in the events recorded in the first two chapters of the Bible is because they fail to realize that Genesis 1 and 2 serve different purposes. Chapter one (including 2:1-4) focuses on the order of the creation events; chapter two (actually 2:5-25) simply provides more detailed information about some of the events mentioned in chapter one. Chapter two never was meant to be a chronological regurgitation of chapter one, but instead serves its own unique purpose—i.e., to develop in detail the more important features of the creation account, especially the creation of man and his surroundings. As Kenneth Kitchen noted in his book, Ancient Orient and the Old Testament:


Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the last of a series, and without any details, whereas in Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific details are given about him and his setting. Failure to recognize the complimentary nature of the subject—distinction between a skeleton outline of all creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on obscurantism (1966, p. 117).

Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe summarized some of the differences in Genesis 1-2 in the following chart (1992, p. 35):

Genesis 1 Genesis 2
Chronological Order Topical Order
Outline Details
Creating Animals Naming Animals

The fact is, “Genesis 2 does not present a creation account at all but presupposes the completion of God’s work of creation as set forth in chapter 1.... [C]hapter 2 is built on the foundation of chapter 1 and represents no different tradition than the first chapter or discrepant account of the order of creation” (Archer, 1982, pp. 68-69). In short, Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are harmonious in every way. What may seem as a contradiction at first glance is essentially a more detailed account of chapter one. The text of Genesis 2:19 says nothing about the relative origins of man and beast in terms of chronology, but merely suggests that the animals were formed before being brought to man.

There's more to this article but cannot post it all.

 

[DavidFWhite3]

Marcia:

All of these responses ignore the text of Genesis. Once again, I simply refer to the text as it stands, you look for ways to explain it away. Please just read the text and see that it says what it says, and Chapter two gives a different order of creation period!

I love the Bible as it is. You love a Bible that actually does not exist.

Dave

 

[DavidFWhite3]

Marcia:

Gen. 2:18 "Then the Lord God said,"It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make a helper fit for him." So out of the ground the Lord formed every beast of the field... so forth."

Why don't you just trust what it says, and in the order it says it?

Dave

 

[Marcia]

I don't see the problem with the Matthew and Luke accounts of Jesus' birth. Matthew does not say Mary and Joseph lived in Bethlehem; it says that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. It leaves out the account of going to Egypt. The 4 gospels do not each give all the same stories. In fact, if they did, that would be more suspicious.

See this site:
http://www.douknow.net/ath_nt_contradictions__part1.htm

Luke 2:4 does not contradict Matthew 2:21-23. One passage records a single event; the other passage quotes a single event (the same event) and a historical fact. If a passage does not include ALL events; does not mean that it is to be dismissed.

For the Judas thing:

Henry Morris explains:
"By comparison with the account in Matthew 27:3-8, it is evident that Judas "purchased" this field only indirectly. He threw down his blood money (the thirty pieces of silver paid him for betraying Jesus) in front of the chief priests, who used it to buy the field called Aceldama (Acts 1:19), or "the field of blood" (Matthew 27:8). He then hanged himself, apparently in the same field, but bungled the attempt, actually dying as described in this verse." source: "The Defenders Study Bible", pg 1177
From
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/contradictions.html