The history of the Church and Evolution.

[Danieltwotwenty]

I believe God may have guided them on the important bits, but he may also may not have guided them, who knows except God, and if he did I believe it would only have been the theological points, the why of it, the how of it was not important and is still not important to this day. I think God more inspired the theological content rather than the scientific content, if that makes sense.

Unlike the writers of the other books of the bible, God spoke directly to Moses. It was not a matter of inspiration. For all we know, the history in Genesis was given word for word from God to Moses, who wrote it down.

According to the Jewish people I have spoken with this is not true, Moses had some direct instruction from God but a lot was also oral tradition that he wrote down.

[PaulSacramento]

I believe God may have guided them on the important bits, but he may also may not have guided them, who knows except God, and if he did I believe it would only have been the theological points, the why of it, the how of it was not important and is still not important to this day. I think God more inspired the theological content rather than the scientific content, if that makes sense.

Unlike the writers of the other books of the bible, God spoke directly to Moses. It was not a matter of inspiration. For all we know, the history in Genesis was given word for word from God to Moses, who wrote it down.

Moses started the writing of the Pentateuch but didn't finish it ( this is shown in the parts that are written after his death for example).
I am sure there was an oral tradition passed on before Moses and the he included it in Genesis and Exodus and so forth.
There are lots of writings on the subject.
Allow me to be clear that does NOT take away from the value and holiness of scripture, regardless of how many may think that to be so.
The bible is a combination of books, letters, poems/songs, historical accounts, prophetic writings, etc.
It is truly the greatest "book" ever written, a progressive revelation of God's WORD in human words for ALL to lead them to Christ (IMO).

[Philip]

According to the Jewish people I have spoken with this is not true, Moses had some direct instruction from God but a lot was also oral tradition that he wrote down.

And so how would anyone alive, today, know for certain? Scholars can't even agree. And so some of this issue is necessarily regulated to speculation.

[PaulSacramento]

According to the Jewish people I have spoken with this is not true, Moses had some direct instruction from God but a lot was also oral tradition that he wrote down.

And so how would anyone alive, today, know for certain? Scholars can't even agree. And so some of this issue is necessarily regulated to speculation.

Well...certain parts certainly were not written by Moses ( like those after his death), then there is writing structure and such.
Personally I believe Moses wrote the vast majority, the rest was finished by others ( perhaps Joshua) and of course then there is the editing and copying by the scribes.
I do NOT think that the original meaning was ever altered however.

[Philip]

Well...certain parts certainly were not written by Moses ( like those after his death), then there is writing structure and such.
Personally I believe Moses wrote the vast majority, the rest was finished by others ( perhaps Joshua) and of course then there is the editing and copying by the scribes.

I do NOT think that the original meaning was ever altered however.

I believe the above conjecture is entirely reasonable. The problem and crucial error many make is they simply assume that if God used FAILABLE men to write down His word, then much of it (as we have it today) isn't His intended thoughts, but are merely the creative musings of mortals. But God has a plan for humanity, of which His Great Commission is a key part. And yet God is using humanity and men of His choosing to bring that about, and precisely as He wants it to unfold. So often, we get hung up on the micro of how God did this or that, and yet we miss His MACRO actions - how He IS the Creator of ALL that exists and how He is using it to write and enact the pages of human history, and how He has ALWAYS had an exact draft as to precisely how He wants it all to unfold, according to His perfect plans. And yet we get all hung up on whether God could truly have parted the Red Sea, turned water into wine, or given humanity His divinely inspired Word through often-inept men, or how He can turn precisely guide history's pages by also giving such men free will. We often only see the supposed "flaws" in God's plans, and yet we can't even accurately gauge the weather for tomorrow.

[PaulSacramento]

Well...certain parts certainly were not written by Moses ( like those after his death), then there is writing structure and such.
Personally I believe Moses wrote the vast majority, the rest was finished by others ( perhaps Joshua) and of course then there is the editing and copying by the scribes.

I do NOT think that the original meaning was ever altered however.

I believe the above conjecture is entirely reasonable. The problem and crucial error many make is they simply assume that if God used FAILABLE men to write down His word, then much of it (as we have it today) isn't His intended thoughts, but are merely the creative musings of mortals. But God has a plan for humanity, of which His Great Commission is a key part. And yet God is using humanity and men of His choosing to bring that about, and precisely as He wants it to unfold. So often, we get hung up on the micro of how God did this or that, and yet we miss His MACRO actions - how He IS the Creator of ALL that exists and how He is using it to write and enact the pages of human history, and how He has ALWAYS had an exact draft as to precisely how He wants it all to unfold, according to His perfect plans. And yet we get all hung up on whether God could truly have parted the Red Sea, turned water into wine, or given humanity His divinely inspired Word through often-inept men, or how He can turn precisely guide history's pages by also giving such men free will. We often only see the supposed "flaws" in God's plans, and yet we can't even accurately gauge the weather for tomorrow.

Too many times we believe in the either/or thing when in reality it isn't that way.
Either we trust ALL of the bible to be perfect and without error the WAY WE WANT it to be, or none of it can be trusted.
This view is wrong IMO.
We trust the bible to be what it was intended to be and in my view it was intended to point to Christ and our salvation through Him.
Your mention of the Red sea is a good one and here is why:
Did God part the Red Sea or the REED Sea?
Did He do all those miracles in Egypt?
IMO, NOT the point ( though I believe He did) because the point was that AFTER ALL they saw and witnessed the Hebrews STILL turned their back on Moses and God the first chance they had.
Yes the elements of the story that are supernatural are very important but not just to show the power of YHWH over the gods of Egypt BUT also to show how fickle and frail humans are.
Is this not echoed when Christ was abandoned? when even after He did, the miracles and even bring back the dead, His intentions were still questioned and those that were with Him all the time, still fled and lost their faith?

So many times we get caught up in the "cool" aspects of a story that we forget the meaning behind them.

I believe that the bible. like creation, is good for its purpose but not perfect.
I mean, God created creation DIRECTLY and it was good, but not perfect, so why would we expect the bible that was NOT written DIRECTLY by God and was never meant to be perfect, to be perfect?

[Philip]

I believe that the bible. like creation, is good for its purpose but not perfect.

Paul, I'm not totally sure what you mean there, but as originally written, it IS perfect for its intended purposes. That also means that the original writings were historically and factually true (not saying that there's not figurative and symbolic language in places) - and I would argue we have good reasons to believe we have the vast majority of that, and that the tremendous number of copies and the scribe system and God's Holy Spirit guiding all process are the reasons why. That does not mean that there aren't written errors (misspellings, word order and other mistakes) that in no way change the meanings of ANY key doctrinal or historical point. There were also a few places that much LATER (than the original autographs) minor additions were made (like the last verses added to Mark, perhaps the Adulteri passage). But literary criticism techniques and the vast number of copies (God also provided) have brought great illumination to understanding what WAS in the original autographs and where anyone may have monkeyed with the text. And so God made PERFECT what He wanted to make perfect, and He wasn't concerned with errors that really didn't change any crucial meanings, and He's provided ways of discerning textual inconsistencies. God can and does work through imperfect humans, but he makes sure that their imperfect actions have no impact on His perfect plans - in fact He even USES our imperfections. Same with our (limited parameters) of free will. He's God - it's WHAT He does!

[PaulSacramento]

I believe that the bible. like creation, is good for its purpose but not perfect.

Paul, I'm not totally sure what you mean there, but as originally written, it IS perfect for its intended purposes. That also means that the original writings were historically and factually true (not saying that there's not figurative and symbolic language in places) - and I would argue we have good reasons to believe we have the vast majority of that, and that the tremendous number of copies and the scribe system and God's Holy Spirit guiding all process are the reasons why. That does not mean that there aren't written errors (misspellings, word order and other mistakes) that in no way change the meanings of ANY key doctrinal or historical point. There were also a few places that much LATER (than the original autographs) minor additions were made (like the last verses added to Mark, perhaps the Adulteri passage). But literary criticism techniques and the vast number of copies (God also provided) have brought great illumination to understanding what WAS in the original autographs and where anyone may have monkeyed with the text. And so God made PERFECT what He wanted to make perfect, and He wasn't concerned with errors that really didn't change any crucial meanings, and He's provided ways of discerning textual inconsistencies. God can and does work through imperfect humans, but he makes sure that their imperfect actions have no impact on His perfect plans - in fact He even USES our imperfections. Same with our (limited parameters) of free will. He's God - it's WHAT He does!

I mean that nothing is perfect other than God.
God's creation, even before the fall, was never viewed as perfect, just "good".
The only perfection, the only thing without an flaw, fault or error is God.
If there was something perfect then IT would be God as well.

Now, you mention "perfect for its intended purpose" and on that I agree.
The purpose of the bible is to point to Christ and IF it does that, then it is perfect for its purpose.

[pat34lee]

Now, you mention "perfect for its intended purpose" and on that I agree.
The purpose of the bible is to point to Christ and IF it does that, then it is perfect for its purpose.

One problem: If you can't count on the basic history of the bible to be true, how much less so the spiritual parts?

By history I mean such commonly disputed parts as:

6-day creation
worldwide flood
Sodom and Gomorrah
Exodus from Egypt
Jericho's walls
Giants
conquest of Israel
Temple
Kings David and Solomon
etc.

[PaulSacramento]

Now, you mention "perfect for its intended purpose" and on that I agree.
The purpose of the bible is to point to Christ and IF it does that, then it is perfect for its purpose.

One problem: If you can't count on the basic history of the bible to be true, how much less so the spiritual parts?

By history I mean such commonly disputed parts as:

6-day creation
worldwide flood
Sodom and Gomorrah
Exodus from Egypt
Jericho's walls
Giants
conquest of Israel
Temple
Kings David and Solomon
etc.

We CAN count on the basic history of the bible to be as true as it was intended to be.
The issue is when we don't have any evidence of things being the way the bible states they were.
What do we do then?
First off we can admit that our view of the bible MAY be incorrect and that our understanding of what was written and why and to whom COULD be incorrect, in other words NOT that the bible is wrong but that OUR UNDERSTANDING of it is wrong.
We can also accept the fact that the LACK of historical evidence for something does NOT mean that the something never existed.
Remember, until something is found it just means it is "lost" or not yet found, not that it doesn't exist.
Lets take the exodus for example:
Some suggest that IF it happened to the degree it did ( massive population displacement) that there MUST be SOME evidence of it.
They suggest that no evidence found means it never happened.
The issue is that first you must do this:
Establish a correct time frame, correct geographical area ( just to start), establish the route and how many people and then establish what one EXPECTS to find under the conditions, conditions that we then have to make sure are correct.
EX:
http://www.jewishjournal.com/dennis_pra ... dus_happen

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-isa ... 46337.html

http://www.ensignmessage.com/archives/exodusscptcs.html

[pat34lee]

Remember, until something is found it just means it is "lost" or not yet found, not that it doesn't exist.
Lets take the exodus for example:
Some suggest that IF it happened to the degree it did ( massive population displacement) that there MUST be SOME evidence of it.

The Exodus is a good place to start. Not only because it happened, but because it is not what people think. Have you ever read the account and wondered how 600,000 Hebrew warriors could be afraid of Pharoah's 600 chariots? At the time, there were probably no more than 2 million people total in all of Egypt. The problem is due to the translation error of one word, 'eleph'. See the following page.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/39_exodus.html

As for proof, even with about 7000 people instead of 2-3 million, there should still be something. And there is.

Deut. 11:24 Every place whereon the soles of your feet shall tread shall be yours: from the wilderness and Lebanon, from the river, the river Euphrates, even unto the uttermost sea shall your coast be.

Joshua 1:3 Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses.

All over Arabia there are carvings in the rocks where someone many centuries ago carved the picture of a sandal. What a fitting symbol of the promise of God. They are all over Arabia, and the Muslims know this. Can you see why this would worry the Arabs?
Remember, their shoes (sandals) did not wear out during their forty years of wandering (Deuteronomy 29:5). This, coupled with the promise of God, would have made their sandals very special.
http://www.fortressoffaith.org/blog/201 ... rn-part-4/

In addition, the Red Sea crossing was found, complete with chariot wheels at the bottom of the sea. Mount Sinai and the rock that Moses struck for water are both in Saudi Arabia.

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/red_sea_crossing.htm
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/mt__sinai_found.htm