Has the Bible ever been proven wrong?

[Annie]

The Bible should be technically accurate. Jesus, being fully God, could have drawn the people’s attention to the mustard seed and said that the kingdom of heaven is like the small mustard seed. When Jesus used the superlative term (Examples: smallest, least, etc.) without a qualifier (Example: in this area), he was technically incorrect.

He would not have had to create a different parable or use something that the people did not know of. He could have simply avoided the superlative or supply a qualifier.

He was speaking to his audience. They understood what he was saying. You've managed to give an example of why I believe we interpret the Bible, because the analogies/examples used at that time and place, do not necessarily resonate with today or 500 years ago or in the future.

Your dithering over 'qualifiers' is inane.

 

[glockmail]

The Bible should be technically accurate. Jesus, being fully God, could have drawn the people’s attention to the mustard seed and said that the kingdom of heaven is like the small mustard seed. When Jesus used the superlative term (Examples: smallest, least, etc.) without a qualifier (Example: in this area), he was technically incorrect.

He would not have had to create a different parable or use something that the people did not know of. He could have simply avoided the superlative or supply a qualifier.

It appears that the translators disagree, Matts. I see 7 versions that are different that what you claim. Some qualify the seed as the smallest owned by the farmer, most others also claim the resultant plant to be the biggest in the garden, which Jesus obviously knew was not technically correct, but nevertheless putting the story in the correct context of a parable, which is so stated.

NIV: 31He told them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches.”

NLT: 31 Here is another illustration Jesus used: “The Kingdom of Heaven is like a mustard seed planted in a field. 32 It is the smallest of all seeds, but it becomes the largest of garden plants; it grows into a tree, and birds come and make nests in its branches.”

21st CKJV: 31Another parable put He forth before them, saying, "The Kingdom of Heaven is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field,

32which indeed is the least of all seeds; but when it is grown it is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof."

ASV: 31 Another parable set he before them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like unto a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field:
32 which indeed is less than all seeds; but when it is grown, it is greater than the herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the heaven come and lodge in the branches thereof.

YLT 31Another simile he set before them, saying: `The reign of the heavens is like to a grain of mustard, which a man having taken, did sow in his field,
32which less, indeed, is than all the seeds, but when it may be grown, is greatest of the herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the heaven do come and rest in its branches.'

DR1899: 31Another parable he proposed unto them, saying: The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field.
32Which is the least indeed of all seeds; but when it is grown up, it is greater than all herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come, and dwell in the branches thereof.

NIRV: 31 Jesus told the crowd another story. He said, "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed. Someone took the seed and planted it in a field. 32 It is the smallest of all your seeds. But when it grows, it is the largest of all garden plants. It becomes a tree. Birds come and rest in its branches."

 

[mattskramer]

It appears that the translators disagree, Matts. I see 7 versions that are different that what you claim. Some qualify the seed as the smallest owned by the farmer, most others also claim the resultant plant to be the biggest in the garden, which Jesus obviously knew was not technically correct, but nevertheless putting the story in the correct context of a parable, which is so stated.

My position still stands. Even though it was a parable. Jesus could have simply said that the mustard seed is the smallest in the region or that the mustard seed is small. If Jesus knew that something was not correct, he could have said something else about the mustard seed and still kept it in the parable.

 

[glockmail]

My position still stands. .... .

So far you have been entirely consistent by ignoring all logical arguments.:happy2:

 

[mattskramer]

So far you have been entirely consistent by ignoring all logical arguments.:happy2:

You did not give logical arguments but flimsy excuses that don't hold up to the fact of the matter. Jesus, being that he is God, would not say that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, even if in a parable, unless it were true. It is as simple as that. All he needed to say was that the mustard seed is small or that it is the smallest in that area. I’m sorry but Jesus was wrong in this case. You can dance around it all that you like.

In each translation that you gave it says, “…the least of all seeds”. The mustard seed is not the least of all seeds. Period.

 

[glockmail]

You did not give logical arguments but flimsy excuses that don't hold up to the fact of the matter. Jesus, being that he is God, would not say that the mustard seed is the smallest seed, even if in a parable, unless it were true. It is as simple as that. All he needed to say was that the mustard seed is small or that it is the smallest in that area. I’m sorry but Jesus was wrong in this case. You can dance around it all that you like.

In each translation that you gave it says, “…the least of all seeds”. The mustard seed is not the least of all seeds. Period.

Not only do you dismiss logic but you would rather write than read:

NIV: 32 Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, …”

NIRV: 32 It is the smallest of all your seeds. ….

 

[mattskramer]

Not only do you dismiss logic but you would rather write than read:

NIV: 32 Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, …”

NIRV: 32 It is the smallest of all your seeds. ….

Least or Smallest - for all practical purposes, it means the same thing. The mustard seed is not the smallest or least seed.

 

[glockmail]

Least or Smallest - for all practical purposes, it means the same thing. The mustard seed is not the smallest or least seed.

Still having trouble reading, Matts?

NIV: 32 Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, …”

NIRV: 32 It is the smallest of all your seeds. ….

your: refers to something that belongs to or relates to an addressee

 

[mattskramer]

Still having trouble reading, Matts?

NIV: 32 Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, …”

NIRV: 32 It is the smallest of all your seeds. ….

your: refers to something that belongs to or relates to an addressee

Okay. Okay. You found a few translations that differ from other translations. Even the translations don’t agree with each other over what Jesus actually said. Why am I not surprised? Some writers – translators – interpreters – whatever must have picked up on Jesus’ error. Which translation is correct? I guess that the YLT is correct since it suits my bias. Which do you like? LOL.

 

[glockmail]

Okay. Okay. You found a few translations that differ from other translations. Even the translations don’t agree with each other over what Jesus actually said. Why am I not surprised? Some writers – translators – interpreters – whatever must have picked up on Jesus’ error. Which translation is correct? I guess that the YLT is correct since it suits my bias. Which do you like? LOL.

Actually I found 7 translations. But whose counting when you are blind to logic?

What this actually proves is that you are so blind to reason that I have to hit you over the head with the truth, literally pointing out specific words that you have dismissed several times previous, for you to then figure out another excuse not to see. This fully explains your undying commitment to atheism.

 

[flaja]

Big Difference - According to Genesis, the sun was created AFTER the earth.

Created after the earth or simply became visible after the earth was created? Darwinists and Old Earth Creationists believe that the earth once had a period is which the world's oceans were filled with iron. While the water had all this iron in it the sky had a reddish tint to it and the sun could not be seen. But, eventually the iron precipitated out in what is called the Iron Catastrophe. After that the water and sky became blue and the sun was visible from the earth for the first time. According to Darwinists photosynthetic plants then developed- which corresponds to the creation order in Genesis.

 

[flaja]

But it was written from the perspective of God.

Not always. If the entire Bible is written from God’s perspective, then what hope could humans have to ever understand any of it?

 

[Nienna]

Created after the earth or simply became visible after the earth was created? Darwinists and Old Earth Creationists believe that the earth once had a period is which the world's oceans were filled with iron. While the water had all this iron in it the sky had a reddish tint to it and the sun could not be seen. But, eventually the iron precipitated out in what is called the Iron Catastrophe. After that the water and sky became blue and the sun was visible from the earth for the first time. According to Darwinists photosynthetic plants then developed- which corresponds to the creation order in Genesis.

Wow. And people say "And God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night'" is an implausible, unsubstantiated story. What was that about Occam's Razor?

 

[flaja]

Wow. And people say "And God said, 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night'" is an implausible, unsubstantiated story. What was that about Occam's Razor?

Huh?

People should not reject the Bible on the basis of ignorance of all the facts (that is the sun on day 4 may not make sense until the Iron Catastrophe was understood) or on the basis of misunderstanding the facts that are known.

Occam’s razor works only when all the facts are known and understood.

 

[Nienna]

Huh?

People should not reject the Bible on the basis of ignorance of all the facts (that is the sun on day 4 may not make sense until the Iron Catastrophe was understood) or on the basis of misunderstanding the facts that are known.

Occam’s razor works only when all the facts are known and understood.

Exactly. What I mean to say is that people reject God's Word about the six-day creation, yet believe long, complicated stories about an equally unobserved "Iron Catastrophe."

Occam's Razor calls for the simplest explanation to be accepted. If one is trying to understand the Bible, is it simpler to accept "God said 'Let there be lights in the sky,' and there were," or simpler to twist & machinate to make the Genesis account fit into an equally unobserved story about an iron-filled ocean and a red-tinted sky?

 

[dmp]

Not always. If the entire Bible is written from God’s perspective, then what hope could humans have to ever understand any of it?

That question doesn't make sense. God is VERY understandable; in fact, If God were NOT understandable Adam and Eve would have an 'out' for their original sin. People use the "God's too big to be understood by we mere mortals!" all the time. What I think that REALLY means is this: "God's words are TOO Convicting. If I understand what He says, I'll have to face the music that I'm a sinner, and doing things MY way only makes my life, and after-life, crappy."

 

[flaja]

Exactly. What I mean to say is that people reject God's Word about the six-day creation, yet believe long, complicated stories about an equally unobserved "Iron Catastrophe."

Occam's Razor calls for the simplest explanation to be accepted. If one is trying to understand the Bible, is it simpler to accept "God said 'Let there be lights in the sky,' and there were," or simpler to twist & machinate to make the Genesis account fit into an equally unobserved story about an iron-filled ocean and a red-tinted sky?

The simplest explanation doesn’t always work when you don’t know all the facts. Consider the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic. Many of the people who died from the flu had a bacterium, Pfeiffer’s Bacillus, in their lungs. Many doctors concluded that this bacterium was the cause of the flu and they even developed vaccines against it. Occam’s razor said this bacterium should be the cause of the flu. But, the real cause was a virus, and we did not have the technology in 1918 to observe a virus- our microscopes simply were not powerful enough. So Occam’s razor is no guarantee of the truth.

BTW: I don’t necessarily accept a literal 6 day creation. The Bible doesn’t point-blank tell us how long each day was, and there is evidence that the earth has not always had 24 hour solar days. But, science is incapable of telling us how old the earth is or when it was formed beyond a shadow of a doubt. I refuse to be dogmatic about the earth’s age. I do, however, insist that nothing died before Adam and Eve sinned (i.e., man and dinosaurs lived at the same time) because a God that would create living things just so they could die (as the likes of Hugh Ross claim) is not a God worthy of worship.

 

[flaja]

That question doesn't make sense. God is VERY understandable; in fact, If God were NOT understandable Adam and Eve would have an 'out' for their original sin. People use the "God's too big to be understood by we mere mortals!" all the time. What I think that REALLY means is this: "God's words are TOO Convicting. If I understand what He says, I'll have to face the music that I'm a sinner, and doing things MY way only makes my life, and after-life, crappy."

Humans can understand God only to the extent that He allows us to understand Him. The Bible has to be written from man’s point of view in order for us to understand it.

 

[glockmail]

... a God that would create living things just so they could die ......

Living things are born to die. Its the cycle of life.

 

[Nienna]

The simplest explanation doesn’t always work when you don’t know all the facts. Consider the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic. Many of the people who died from the flu had a bacterium, Pfeiffer’s Bacillus, in their lungs. Many doctors concluded that this bacterium was the cause of the flu and they even developed vaccines against it. Occam’s razor said this bacterium should be the cause of the flu. But, the real cause was a virus, and we did not have the technology in 1918 to observe a virus- our microscopes simply were not powerful enough. So Occam’s razor is no guarantee of the truth.

But, will we EVER have all the facts? In that example, when the vaccine was administered, the shots did not cure the flu. At that time, the SIMPLEST conclusion was that Pfeiffer's Bacillus did not cause the flu. They didn't know about viruses, but neither did they make up stories. Like, how the flu really WAS caused by Pfeiffer's Bacillus, it's just that Pfeiffer's Bacillus isn't REALLY Pfeiffer's Bacillus. The phrase "Pfeiffer's Bacillus" can actually mean a variety of microscopic organisms, including viruses. So, you see, the Spanish flu really WAS caused by Pfeiffer's Bacillus, only Pfeiffer's Bacillus isn't ONLY Pfeiffer's Bacillus. Occam's Razor: Even though they didn't have ALL the information, they didn't make up erroneous information to fill the void.

But, science is incapable of telling us how old the earth is or when it was formed beyond a shadow of a doubt. I refuse to be dogmatic about the earth’s age. I do, however, insist that nothing died before Adam and Eve sinned (i.e., man and dinosaurs lived at the same time) because a God that would create living things just so they could die (as the likes of Hugh Ross claim) is not a God worthy of worship.

AMEN Brotha!