Comment on Why the Bible? by Sean Pitman.
@ken:
What is to say that Moses, or whoever were the author(s) of the Pentateuch, did not borrow, build upon, amend or adapt from earlier Babylonian and Sumerian stories.? Obviously the earlier versions could not borrow from the latter right?
If the stories told in all of these versions of creation have an element of truth to them, who is to say that they all did not receive these stories from their ancestors who were closer to the actual events described? After all, according to the Bible anyway, Shem, one of the sons of Noah, almost outlived Abraham himself. This is why some suggest that it was actually Shem who was the “King of Salem… without beginning of life or end of days” to whom Abraham paid tithe after his win over the armies that took his nephew Lot captive.
Such stories as were transmitted by Shem for a very long time after the Flood to the peoples of all the world at that time, were not that far removed from the generations during the time of Moses. The only difference, of course, is that Moses was the direct descendent of Abraham who personally knew Shem. Also, not to be forgotten, Moses claimed to have talked directly with God “face to face”.
Taking all these claims into account, which of the creation stories among all of those from all nations that are available to us are most consistent with the evidence that is currently available? By far, whoever wrote Genesis, is more accurate in numerous details regarding historical artifacts and geological features than are any of the other records of the creation account and worldwide flood.
Also, the prophecies noted in Genesis and elsewhere in the “Old Testament” are not to be discounted as evidence for Biblical credibility as no other book or historical record is so extremely consistent in the accuracy of its predictions regarding the future.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
I do think however that Science, not necessarily any one individual scientist not subject to correction, is the best objective tool for looking at Reality. And if Reality is the work of a Creator/God, perhaps the best tool for understaning the nature of same.
I agree, obviously, with this statement – with the caveat that “science” is not defined by what popular scientists generally believe at any given point in time or that science is somehow entirely objective or independent of the requirement to make “leaps of faith” to one degree or another…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
I’m not an atheist, never have been. How can one have that degree of certitude in light of the fact one the universe exists without an explanation for first cause. But I do not that all religions change as time moves forward.
As a very unusual non-standard “agnostic” who believes that the existence of God is “likely” (given theistic arguments from first cause), obviously you’re not an atheist. It seems that although you believe that the existence of some kind of God is likely (contrary to the very definition of an agnostic), you are unsure, or truly agnostic, with regard to the particular character or nature of this God.
While views of God do indeed change over time, history does not change. The Bible, as a very ancient historical narrative, has demonstrated itself to be extraordinarily stable and reliable over very long periods of time as a true account of historical events – even miraculous events. Given the demonstrated accuracy of the Bible regarding discoverable history, this should give one pause regarding the Bible’s claims as to the nature of God as well. That is my own position in any case.
For example, it appears there may be a reformation afoot regarding the amendment of FB # 6. Is this God’s work or Man’s work? How does one distinguish who is inspired by God vs. their own personal views? And ultimately who controls the levers of power ( who will appoint the committee and voting members at the GC) to vote upon any change?
“By their fruits you will know them.” – Matthew 7:20
It is one thing to demonstrate that a particular event or phenomenon requires superhuman creativity and/or power. It is another thing to demonstrate that this Power is Divine or ultimately Good – as one would expect from the Christian-style God.
God’s work may seem to stumble and fall for a time, but God’s work, as strikingly demonstrated in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, is always ultimately successful.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Why the Bible?
@Hubert F. Sturges:
I don’t like the word “magic” to describe the supernatural acts of God. The supernatural is very different from magic. Such acts are always very practical and necessary to the situation at hand.
And Faith wrote:
I agree with Mr. Sturges. That word, as well as the word “fairytales”, has been bothering me ever since I first read the above article. I have been trying to figure out how to express my thoughts without hurtiing Sean’s feelings, but I believe it is important to differentiate between the “magic” that Satan and his agents practice and the miracles that God works.
I am well aware of and sympathize with these concerns and even considered them before I wrote this article. However, you must understand that I was writing from the perspective of someone approaching the Bible for the first time – before one becomes aware of its truly Divine origin. From this perspective, many of the stories would at first appear to be quite magical or like a fairytale indeed (in the best most innocent children-story sense of the words).
I know that there is a difference between the Satanic magical arts (and I’m not talking about illusionists or card tricks here) and truly Divine miracles. However, for the average person who is not aware of the distinction, who first starts considering the claims of the Bible, the miracles described in the Bible would appear, at first approximation, to be very similar to what is generally referred to as “magic” or to nothing more than made up fairytales for children. How then does one end up telling the difference? That’s the question I’m asking here.
In any case, please do consider the context and intended perspective of my argument, as well as my conclusion that there is a very clear and evident difference between the Bible and fairytales or moral fables as well as between the miracles or “magic” that Satan is able to produce. The Bible is so far beyond any of these as to be clearly Divine in origin for anyone who considers and researches it carefully and with an open candid mind.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
