Is the Bible mythology?

[izzy]

"While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.†They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.†When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?†They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate it in their presence."
Luke 24:36-43, NIV

When Luke researched for his gospel account, he spoke to witnesses of Christ who were still alive, including, most likely, Mary, the mother of Jesus for the infancy story. Luke wrote the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts together and they were completed while Paul was in prison in Rome in the A.D 60's. They are both addressed to Theophilus and contain evidence that they were written together. Luke accompanied Paul on his later missionary journeys.

The only reason Paul did not mention any of the miracles of the gospels or Acts directly is because the churches already knew of them. Early accounts of Jesus life (possibly the manuscript entitled Q from which much of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are based off of) were already in circulation. Paul was speaking to the churches on theological and moral issues and did not feel the need to remind them of many of the things they had already heard.

As for the resurrection, it is evident from Luke 24 and John 20 that Jesus had a physical body, but that it had some unusual characteristics like being able to suddenly appear in locked rooms. That doesn't mean that it was spiritual only. It was instead a glorified body that was immortal and incorruptible. Paul is correct in saying that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" because mortal bodies under the curse of sin and death will perish. But Paul continues with, "the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will all be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable and the mortal with immortality (1 Corinthians 15:52-53, NIV). This means that believers will receive a new body like that of Christ - a physical body.

 

[logical bob]

When Luke researched for his gospel account, he spoke to witnesses of Christ who were still alive, including, most likely, Mary, the mother of Jesus for the infancy story.

How do you know that? The infancy story can't possibly be true. There's no evidence anywhere other than Luke to suggest that the Romans ever organised a census that required everyone to return to their ancestral home. And the census of Quirinius happened in AD 6, so whoever the author consulted, it wasn't the author of Matthew, who placed the brith of Jesus during the reign of Herod, who died in 4 BC.

Luke wrote the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts together and they were completed while Paul was in prison in Rome in the A.D 60's. They are both addressed to Theophilus and contain evidence that they were written together. Luke accompanied Paul on his later missionary journeys.

The third gospel, like the others, is anonymous. Do you have evidence for who wrote it, where and when?

Early accounts of Jesus life (possibly the manuscript entitled Q from which much of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are based off of) were already in circulation.

Q consists almost entirely of sayings. There's no evidence that it contained miracle stories.

As for the resurrection, it is evident from Luke 24 and John 20 that Jesus had a physical body.

As I said before, Luke and John certainly do say this. I'm only questioning whether Paul would have agreed with them.

 

[Physicist]

Veritas, thanks for a colourful contribution. You’re right and I should clarify. The passages you quote show that Paul expected Christianity to involve healing, prophecy and speaking in tongues just as it does for many people today. They don’t seem to refer to the miracle stories in the gospels or in Acts.

I see, in my mind I'm not sure what healing, prophecy, tongues, and miracles, would apply to, if not to the stories in the gospels and especially acts

I think one can go further and say that Paul definitely did not believe in a real physical resurrection,

1 Corinthians 15:50 “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"

Paul separates the natural body from the spiritual body. Only the latter gets resurrected. This is quite Gnostic in its interpretation and explains why Marcion used letters from Paul in his canon. The later gospel authors (Luke, John), in contrast to Paul, provide the resurrected Jesus with a physical body. He certainly is not in Paul's spiritual body, as pointed out in Luke 24:39.

This view doesn't seem to harmonize well with the rest of the chapter. Although I can see how this could just be a disagreement in semantics. I agree that Jesus' resurrected body was different in that it was no longer subject to disease, and decay. I think a spiritual body is a good description; however, I would say His spiritual body was physical.

Perhaps it is a matter of semantics since we are talking about a hypothetical item, sort of like discussing the nature of superman's cape. However, if we look at the texts, we see that Paul thought the spiritual body was like the heavenly bodies such as stars. Of course, he didn't know what stars were made from. I doubt he thought that dead people became glowing balls of hydrogen. The author of Luke specifically says that spirits are not physical.

" Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have "

 

[DarcyLu]

Perhaps it is a matter of semantics since we are talking about a hypothetical item, sort of like discussing the nature of superman's cape. However, if we look at the texts, we see that Paul thought the spiritual body was like the heavenly bodies such as stars. Of course, he didn't know what stars were made from. I doubt he thought that dead people became glowing balls of hydrogen. The author of Luke specifically says that spirits are not physical.

" Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have "

right, it's a different realm then what we know.

people have been trying to capture ghosts aka demons for years, we do not have the technology to do so, nor do they know what substance they are made of, just like people who belief in UFO's, what substance are they made of and if they are from the pyshical world, how do they possess enough energy to come to earth, how do they have enough propulsion to defy gravity and how do they handle the g forces???

 

[Veritas]

Perhaps it is a matter of semantics since we are talking about a hypothetical item, sort of like discussing the nature of superman's cape. However, if we look at the texts, we see that Paul thought the spiritual body was like the heavenly bodies such as stars. Of course, he didn't know what stars were made from. I doubt he thought that dead people became glowing balls of hydrogen. The author of Luke specifically says that spirits are not physical.

" Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have "

I too, doubt he thought dead people became glowing balls of hydrogen. I also agree that Luke clearly states that "spirits" are not physical in Luke 24:39. However, in Corinthians 15, Paul is using the term "spiritual" to describe the resurrected body; not in the sense of stars and glowing balls of hydrogen, but in the sense of which our body will enjoy the influence, graces, and gifts of God.

Consider that Paul does this elsewhere in his letters:

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: 1 Corinthians 2:14-15

It would be unreasonable to claim that Paul is talking about a "spiritual man" without a physical body in this text.

Here is another example:

Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Galatians 6:1

Again, it does not make sense to assume that Paul is telling us that only those of us "without physical bodies" should help our brothers. The same principles of reason apply to the reading of 1 Corinthians 15.

 

[nadab]

Many have taken the stand that the Bible is not the word of God. James Barr (1924 -2006) once Oxford Hebrew professor, said that "the proper term for the Bible would be Word of Israel, Word of some leading early Christians.†(The Bible in the Modern World ) There is, however, sound evidence that the Bible is God's word. What are some examples of the Bible's accuracy, that we can trust this "book" ?

Anatomy: The Bible accurately says that ‘all the parts’ of a human embryo are “in writing.†(Psalm 139:13-16) The brain, the heart, the lungs, the eyes-these and all the other body parts are ‘written down’ in the genetic code of the fertilized egg in the mother’s womb. Contained in this code are internal timetables for the appearance of each of these parts in proper order. This fact about the development of the human body was recorded in the Bible almost 3,000 years before James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the genetic DNA code in 1953. How was it possible for the "book", the Bible, to have pointed toward a genetic code long before it's discovery in the twentieth century ?

Yes, and the Muslims claim that the Quran is the Word of God because it says the the Universe came from smoke which can be loosely interpreted as interstellar dust clouds. An actual reading of this Psalm

"My substance was not hid from you, when I was made in secret, and curiously worked in the lowest parts of the earth"

shows that has nothing to do with DNA.

Whether you agree with the Bible, is your choice. However, the interlinear Scripture4all (based on the oldest complete Hebrew Manuscript, Codex Leningrad B 19A) reads literally of Psalms 139:16: "embryo-of-me they saw eyes-of-you and on scroll-of you all-of them they-are-being-written days they-were-formed and not and to him one in them." Thus, it was as if our unique DNA was written down on a "scroll", at conception, in order for us as a unique individual to be formed. Until 1953, the DNA code that is within our cells, was unknown.

How was it then, that the Bible could say that all our parts are down "in writing", as if written in a book some 3000 years before James Watson and Francis Crick discovered DNA ? There was not even an inkling of thought that we are each individually "blueprinted" with DNA when the book of Psalms was written. Yet the Bible clearly alluded to this at Psalms 139:16. When a child is conceived in the womb, his or her unique "blueprint" is set. What causes the DNA to direct the formation of the many varied organs that comprise our bodies ? This is a challenge even to the most astute neurologist.

Some body parts are immensely complex. Consider, for example, the human brain. Some have called it the most complex object yet discovered in the universe. It contains some 100 billion nerve cells—about as many as the number of stars in our galaxy. Each of those cells branches off into thousands of connections with other cells. Scientists say that a human brain could contain all the information in all the world’s libraries and that its storage capacity may, in fact, be unfathomable. Despite decades of studying this “wonderfully made†organ, scientists admit that they may never fully understand how it works.

Archaeology: The Bible has been supported in many ways by archaeology. For example, discoveries have confirmed the places and names found in Genesis chapter 10. Excavators have uncovered the Chaldean city of Ur, the commercial and religious center where Abraham was born. (Genesis 11:27-31) Above the spring of Gihon in the southeastern part of Jerusalem, archaeologists found the Jebusite city taken by King David. In Jerusalem in 1867 an old water tunnel was discovered, running from the fountain of Gihon back into the hill behind. (2 Samuel 5:4-10)

The Siloam Inscription carved at one end of King Hezekiah’s conduit, or aqueduct, was discovered in 1880. (2 Kings 20:20) Babylon’s fall to Cyrus the Great in 539 B.C.E. is related in the Nabonidus Chronicle, unearthed in the latter half of the 19th century C.E., near modern Baghdad. Details in the book of Esther have been confirmed by inscriptions from Persepolis and the discovery of the palace of King Xerxes (Ahasuerus) at Shushan, or Susa, between 1880 and 1890 C.E.

An Assyrian king named Sargon (whose name, up until the nineteenth century C.E., were not found in sources independent of the Bible record), and other adverse criticisms as to Bible data relating to these lands have all been demonstrated to be without foundation. Near Khorsabad, on a northern tributary of the Tigris River, in 1843 the palace of Assyrian King Sargon II, covering some 10 hectare (25 acres), was discovered, and subsequent archaeological work there brought this king, mentioned at Isaiah 20:1, out of secular obscurity to a position of historical prominence.

Using this reasoning, one could conclude that the Illiad and Odyssey are historical because Troy ruins have been found. However, the Bible contains many historical inaccuracies, as described by experts such as Dever (Who Were the Early Israelites) and Finklestein(The Bible Unearthed)

On the subject of archaeology, the Bible has proven accurate. Even in small details, the accuracy is seen. For example, the prophet Amos, in describing the ostentatious luxury of the rich in Samaria in about the 8th century B.C.E., referred to their "houses of ivory" and "couches of ivory."(Amos 3:15; 6:4) Commenting on some of these findings, Jack Finegan states: “It is of much interest that numerous ivories were found in the excavation of Samaria. These are mostly in the form of plaques or small panels in relief and presumably were once attached to furniture and inlaid in wall paneling.â€â€”Light From the Ancient Past, 1959, pp. 187, 188.

Despite the evidence that King Sargon, though up until 1843, was considered as just "a figment of the imagination" by some critics, you show yourself as unwilling to accept the evidence (just like the critics) that he is now one of the best known ancient kings. Comparing him to the Greek mythological poems lliad and Odyssey, both attributed to Homer, says a lot about your lack of desire to examine evidence that has proven itself. King Sargon is now clearly recognized as factual because of the overwhelming evidence that has been unearthed and hence gives a boost to the Bible's accuracy, encouraging reasonable individuals to further trust the Bible, whereas the Iliad and Odyssey will always be Greek mythology.

Skepticism as regards the Tower of Babel, denials of the existence of a Babylonian king named Belshazzar and of an Assyrian king named Sargon (whose names, up until the nineteenth century C.E., were not found in sources independent of the Bible record), and other adverse criticisms as to Bible data relating to these lands have all been demonstrated to be without foundation. Contrariwise, a wealth of evidence has been unearthed that harmonizes fully with the Scriptural account.

Excavations in and around the ancient city of Babylon have revealed the sites of several ziggurats, or pyramidlike, staged temple-towers, including the ruined temple of Etemenanki inside Babylon’s walls. Records and inscriptions found concerning such temples often contain the words, “Its top shall reach the heavens,†and King Nebuchadnezzar is recorded as saying: “I raised the summit of the Tower of stages at Etemenanki so that its top rivalled the heavens.â€

One fragment found N of the temple of Marduk in Babylon related the fall of such a ziggurat in these words: “The building of this temple offended the gods. In a night they threw down what had been built. They scattered them abroad, and made strange their speech. The progress they impeded.†(Bible and Spade, by S. L. Caiger, 1938, p. 29) The ziggurat located at Uruk (Biblical Erech) was found to be built with clay, bricks, and asphalt. This corresponds to the Biblical account in Genesis 11:1-9.

Of Belshazzar, as seen at Daniel 5, the critics have been put to rest. Near modern Baghdad excavations in the latter half of the 19th century produced numerous clay tablets and cylinders, including the now famous Nabonidus Chronicle. All objections to the record at Daniel chapter 5 as to Belshazzar’s ruling in Babylon at the time of its fall were dispelled by this document, which proved that Belshazzar, eldest son of Nabonidus, was coregent with his father and that in the latter part of his reign Nabonidus entrusted the government of Babylon to his son Belshazzar.

You say that the Bible "contains many historical inaccuracies". Prove your claim. Just because you or anyone else makes a claim, such as Dever and Finklestein, does not make it valid. The Bible has been under attack, especially since the end of the eighteenth century, by so-called "higher criticism". Many are critical of the Bible without examining it carefully, but rather pass it off as just a good literary book, with little value otherwise, just because some "higher authority" says so. Have you studied the Bible carefully ? Have you given it the same opportunity as you would want if you were the one being scrutinized ? No one likes to be condemned without a fair trial, whereby one can present valid evidence to support their side of the case.

 

[nadab]

Accidental double post.

 

[Physicist]

Many have taken the stand that the Bible is not the word of God. James Barr (1924 -2006) once Oxford Hebrew professor, said that "the proper term for the Bible would be Word of Israel, Word of some leading early Christians.†(The Bible in the Modern World ) There is, however, sound evidence that the Bible is God's word. What are some examples of the Bible's accuracy, that we can trust this "book" ?

Anatomy: The Bible accurately says that ‘all the parts’ of a human embryo are “in writing.†(Psalm 139:13-16) The brain, the heart, the lungs, the eyes-these and all the other body parts are ‘written down’ in the genetic code of the fertilized egg in the mother’s womb. Contained in this code are internal timetables for the appearance of each of these parts in proper order. This fact about the development of the human body was recorded in the Bible almost 3,000 years before James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the genetic DNA code in 1953. How was it possible for the "book", the Bible, to have pointed toward a genetic code long before it's discovery in the twentieth century ?

Yes, and the Muslims claim that the Quran is the Word of God because it says the the Universe came from smoke which can be loosely interpreted as interstellar dust clouds. An actual reading of this Psalm

"My substance was not hid from you, when I was made in secret, and curiously worked in the lowest parts of the earth"

shows that has nothing to do with DNA.

Whether you agree with the Bible, is your choice. However, the interlinear Scripture4all (based on the oldest complete Hebrew Manuscript, Codex Leningrad B 19A) reads literally of Psalms 139:16: "embryo-of-me they saw eyes-of-you and on scroll-of you all-of them they-are-being-written days they-were-formed and not and to him one in them." Thus, it was as if our unique DNA was written down on a "scroll", at conception, in order for us as a unique individual to be formed. Until 1953, the DNA code that is within our cells, was unknown.

How was it then, that the Bible could say that all our parts are down "in writing", as if written in a book some 3000 years before James Watson and Francis Crick discovered DNA ? There was not even an inkling of thought that we are each individually "blueprinted" with DNA when the book of Psalms was written. Yet the Bible clearly alluded to this at Psalms 139:16. When a child is conceived in the womb, his or her unique "blueprint" is set. What causes the DNA to direct the formation of the many varied organs that comprise our bodies ? This is a challenge even to the most astute neurologist.

Here is Young's literal translation of the LXX, which dates back older than the second millenium Hebrew text you cite:

16Mine unformed substance Thine eyes saw, And on Thy book all of them are written, The days they were formed -- And not one among them.

As can be seen by carefully reading either version, the psalm author is saying that God knows all about our lives before we live them (Thy book all of them are written). It says nothing about DNA, something unknown to the ancients. In fact, they thought that the man planted a seed in the woman's womb with the latter not contributing anything but a place for the baby to grow.

Here is a modern definition of DNA

A nucleic acid that carries the genetic information in the cell and is capable of self-replication and synthesis of RNA. DNA consists of two long chains of nucleotides twisted into a double helix and joined by hydrogen bonds between the complementary bases adenine and thymine or cytosine and guanine. The sequence of nucleotides determines individual hereditary characteristics

Some body parts are immensely complex. Consider, for example, the human brain. Some have called it the most complex object yet discovered in the universe. It contains some 100 billion nerve cells—about as many as the number of stars in our galaxy. Each of those cells branches off into thousands of connections with other cells. Scientists say that a human brain could contain all the information in all the world’s libraries and that its storage capacity may, in fact, be unfathomable. Despite decades of studying this “wonderfully made†organ, scientists admit that they may never fully understand how it works.

The brain is truly a marvelous organ and modern science is only beginning to understand how it functions. I encourage you and anyone reading this to spend some time in the library reading about the wonderful discoveries now being made in neuroscience.


Will cover your other points later.

Regards,

Physicist

 

[nadab]

Here is Young's literal translation of the LXX, which dates back older than the second millenium Hebrew text you cite:

16Mine unformed substance Thine eyes saw, And on Thy book all of them are written, The days they were formed -- And not one among them.

As can be seen by carefully reading either version, the psalm author is saying that God knows all about our lives before we live them (Thy book all of them are written). It says nothing about DNA, something unknown to the ancients. In fact, they thought that the man planted a seed in the woman's womb with the latter not contributing anything but a place for the baby to grow.

Here is a modern definition of DNA

A nucleic acid that carries the genetic information in the cell and is capable of self-replication and synthesis of RNA. DNA consists of two long chains of nucleotides twisted into a double helix and joined by hydrogen bonds between the complementary bases adenine and thymine or cytosine and guanine. The sequence of nucleotides determines individual hereditary characteristicsPhysicist

A person cannot see for themselves what the Hebrew is when looking at Young's Literal Translation, which follows the archaic English of many Bibles. The Christian Greek Scriptures of Young's Literal Translation, commonly called the New Testament, is based on the text of Robert Estienne of 1550, the same as the King James Bible. The reading of Psalms 139:16 by Young's Literal Translation, "Mine unformed substance Thine eyes saw, And on Thy book all of them are written, The days they were formed -- And not one among them." leaves the reader still lost as to the meaning.

However, in looking at the online interlinear, Scripture4all, based on the Codex Leningrad B 19A manuscript (1008 C.E.and of which Rudolf Kittel based his Biblia Hebraica (BHK), seventh, eighth and ninth editions [1951-55] and later updated as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), 1977 edition) one can see more of the literal meaning of the words into English. David, the writer of this psalm, said at Psalms 139:1 that God had "searched through me, and you know me."

At Psalms 139:7, David asked:"Where can I go from your spirit, and where can I run away from your face ?" Then, at Psalms 139:13, David says that "you yourself produced my kidneys; You kept me screen off in the belly of my mother." Thus, David is asking God to even look deeply within him, even to the "kidneys", and adds that "my bones were not hidden from you, when I was made in secret, when I was woven in the innermost parts of the earth."(Ps 139:15) J. N. Oswalt wrote: “When used figuratively, the term (kidneys) refers to the innermost aspects of personality.†(Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, edited by R. Laird Harris, 1980, Vol. 1, p. 440)

At Exodus 29:13, Young's Literal Translation correctly renders the Hebrew word kela·yohth? as kidneys, but at Psalms 139:13 reads: "For Thou -- Thou hast possessed my reins, Thou dost cover me in my mother's belly", almost reading word for word the rendering of the King James Bible, still using the archaic English, and failing to accurately render the Hebrew word kela·yohth? as kidneys, but as "reins". At Psalms 7:9, Young's Literal Translation again renders kela·yohth? as "reins" instead of "kidneys", leaving the reader in a state of confusion again and with a record of inconsistencies.

Young's Literal Translation renders the Hebrew word golem as "unformed substance", whereas the Talmudic Hebrew properly reads "embryo". This makes more sense, being as David had spoken of the "kidneys" (Hebrew kela·yohth? , Ps 139:13) and his "bones" (Hebrew ’e?tsem, Ps 139:15) as being seen by God.

Hence, in Psalms 139:16, when examining the Hebrew, as in the online interlinear Scripture4all, can it readily be seen that David said that "Your eyes saw even the embryo (Hebrew golem) of me, And in your book all its parts ( the embryo as it is forming) were down in writing, as regards the days when they (the body parts) were formed and there was not yet one (distinct body part) among them."

Thus, David referring to the body's "parts were down in writing" by inspiration, meant what ? That the "blueprint" or DNA of each of us was being spoken there. Consider how—some 100 trillion cells of us—came about. We began as a single cell that was formed when the sperm from our father united with an egg cell from our mother. At that uniting, the plans were drawn up within the DNA (short for deoxyribonucleic acid) of that newly formed cell to produce what eventually became us—an entirely new and unique human. The instructions within the DNA “if written out,†it is said, “would fill a thousand 600-page books.â€(National Geographic, September 1976, p. 357)

In time, that original cell began dividing, making two cells, then four, eight, and so on. Finally, after about 270 days—during which time thousands of millions of cells of many different kinds had developed within our mother to form a baby—we were born. It is as if that first cell had a huge room full of books with detailed instructions on how to make us. But just as wonderful is the fact that these complicated instructions were passed along to every succeeding cell. Yes, amazingly, each of the cells in our body has all the same information as the original fertilized egg contained !

 

[Physicist]

Rorschach

Here is Young's literal translation of the LXX, which dates back older than the second millenium Hebrew text you cite:

16Mine unformed substance Thine eyes saw, And on Thy book all of them are written, The days they were formed -- And not one among them.

As can be seen by carefully reading either version, the psalm author is saying that God knows all about our lives before we live them (Thy book all of them are written). It says nothing about DNA, something unknown to the ancients. In fact, they thought that the man planted a seed in the woman's womb with the latter not contributing anything but a place for the baby to grow.

Here is a modern definition of DNA

A nucleic acid that carries the genetic information in the cell and is capable of self-replication and synthesis of RNA. DNA consists of two long chains of nucleotides twisted into a double helix and joined by hydrogen bonds between the complementary bases adenine and thymine or cytosine and guanine. The sequence of nucleotides determines individual hereditary characteristicsPhysicist

A person cannot see for themselves what the Hebrew is when looking at Young's Literal Translation, which follows the archaic English of many Bibles. The Christian Greek Scriptures of Young's Literal Translation, commonly called the New Testament, is based on the text of Robert Estienne of 1550, the same as the King James Bible. The reading of Psalms 139:16 by Young's Literal Translation, "Mine unformed substance Thine eyes saw, And on Thy book all of them are written, The days they were formed -- And not one among them." leaves the reader still lost as to the meaning.

However, in looking at the online interlinear, Scripture4all, based on the Codex Leningrad B 19A manuscript (1008 C.E.and of which Rudolf Kittel based his Biblia Hebraica (BHK), seventh, eighth and ninth editions [1951-55] and later updated as Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), 1977 edition) one can see more of the literal meaning of the words into English. David, the writer of this psalm, said at Psalms 139:1 that God had "searched through me, and you know me."

At Psalms 139:7, David asked:"Where can I go from your spirit, and where can I run away from your face ?" Then, at Psalms 139:13, David says that "you yourself produced my kidneys; You kept me screen off in the belly of my mother." Thus, David is asking God to even look deeply within him, even to the "kidneys", and adds that "my bones were not hidden from you, when I was made in secret, when I was woven in the innermost parts of the earth."(Ps 139:15) J. N. Oswalt wrote: “When used figuratively, the term (kidneys) refers to the innermost aspects of personality.†(Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, edited by R. Laird Harris, 1980, Vol. 1, p. 440)

At Exodus 29:13, Young's Literal Translation correctly renders the Hebrew word kela·yohth? as kidneys, but at Psalms 139:13 reads: "For Thou -- Thou hast possessed my reins, Thou dost cover me in my mother's belly", almost reading word for word the rendering of the King James Bible, still using the archaic English, and failing to accurately render the Hebrew word kela·yohth? as kidneys, but as "reins". At Psalms 7:9, Young's Literal Translation again renders kela·yohth? as "reins" instead of "kidneys", leaving the reader in a state of confusion again and with a record of inconsistencies.

Young's Literal Translation renders the Hebrew word golem as "unformed substance", whereas the Talmudic Hebrew properly reads "embryo". This makes more sense, being as David had spoken of the "kidneys" (Hebrew kela·yohth? , Ps 139:13) and his "bones" (Hebrew ’e?tsem, Ps 139:15) as being seen by God.

Hence, in Psalms 139:16, when examining the Hebrew, as in the online interlinear Scripture4all, can it readily be seen that David said that "Your eyes saw even the embryo (Hebrew golem) of me, And in your book all its parts ( the embryo as it is forming) were down in writing, as regards the days when they (the body parts) were formed and there was not yet one (distinct body part) among them."

Thus, David referring to the body's "parts were down in writing" by inspiration, meant what ? That the "blueprint" or DNA of each of us was being spoken there. Consider how—some 100 trillion cells of us—came about. We began as a single cell that was formed when the sperm from our father united with an egg cell from our mother. At that uniting, the plans were drawn up within the DNA (short for deoxyribonucleic acid) of that newly formed cell to produce what eventually became us—an entirely new and unique human. The instructions within the DNA “if written out,†it is said, “would fill a thousand 600-page books.â€(National Geographic, September 1976, p. 357)

In time, that original cell began dividing, making two cells, then four, eight, and so on. Finally, after about 270 days—during which time thousands of millions of cells of many different kinds had developed within our mother to form a baby—we were born. It is as if that first cell had a huge room full of books with detailed instructions on how to make us. But just as wonderful is the fact that these complicated instructions were passed along to every succeeding cell. Yes, amazingly, each of the cells in our body has all the same information as the original fertilized egg contained !

The Rorschach test, also known as the Rorschach inkblot test or simply the Inkblot test, is a psychological test in which subjects' perceptions of inkblots are recorded and then analyzed using psychological interpretation. There is no image in the inkblots, but rather in the mind of the observer. IMO, you have turned these words into a verbal inkblot tests. I gave you then generally accepted interpretation. However, nothing prevents you from, in your mind's eye. seeing DNA. Just don't expect others to see it.

Incidentally, not all our cells in are body have all of our DNA information and most of our body is made up of foreign cells.

 

[izzy]

I would have to agree that it is a stretch to read anything about DNA in Psalm 139. The author certainly talks about the omniscience and sovereignty of God, specifically in the forming of a person, but I think it is too far to state that the text is saying anything directly about DNA. Don't get me wrong - DNA certainly bears the imprint of design and demonstrates the creativity and orderliness of God. The more we study the cell and the basics of life, the more we see this truth. However, there is no reason to try to force the text of Psalm 139 to say this specifically.

 

[Andrew]

Personally I think the OP was about the Bible being Mythology. It seems this thread has gotten away from that a bit.
Archeology is the prime source of verification of the Bible's truths.
We verify what is in it by what we dig up. Artifacts found in other countries that back up the scripture.
Most recently, in cleaning out the archives in Egypt's Cairo Museum, coins were found that depict Joseph's account of Pharaoh's dream of the seven cows and seven stalks of wheat, the famine and the fact that Pharaoh turned over all control to Joseph the interpreter of the dream. Only Pharaoh has the authority to mint such a coin; so Joseph (who always loved God) had them minted to Glorify God, because he had the authority.
The finding of Caiaphas' sarcophagus with his name on it and the date of his death 70 AD when the Romans conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the temple.
The dead sea scrolls and the verification that our modern translations are very accurate.
These and many more are why the Bible is not mythology, folk lore, or legend.

 

[Physicist]

Personally I think the OP was about the Bible being Mythology. It seems this thread has gotten away from that a bit.
Archeology is the prime source of verification of the Bible's truths.
We verify what is in it by what we dig up. Artifacts found in other countries that back up the scripture.
Most recently, in cleaning out the archives in Egypt's Cairo Museum, coins were found that depict Joseph's account of Pharaoh's dream of the seven cows and seven stalks of wheat, the famine and the fact that Pharaoh turned over all control to Joseph the interpreter of the dream. Only Pharaoh has the authority to mint such a coin; so Joseph (who always loved God) had them minted to Glorify God, because he had the authority.

Do you REALLY think that they have found a coin where the Pharoah (which Pharoah?) turned over the the mint to Joseph of the Bible, or is this the case of a Bible believer interpreting the data to fit his pre-conception? Please give me your reference.

With regard to famine, yes Egypt experienced famine. Also floods, locust plagues and disease, just not all in one short time period.

The finding of Caiaphas' sarcophagus with his name on it and the date of his death 70 AD when the Romans conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the temple.
The dead sea scrolls and the verification that our modern translations are very accurate.
These and many more are why the Bible is not mythology, folk lore, or legend.

Caiaphas was a real person as was Pilate. Why do you find this fact as verification of the Bible? Napoleon was a real person but his appearance in the novel, 'War and Peace', is fictional.

 

[izzy]

While archeology provides some evidence for the validity of the Scriptures, I would not say it is the prime source of verification of the Bible’s truths. While a lot of archeology supports the Bible, some of it actually seems to cast doubts upon the accounts (Physicist could probably provide you with some examples). Biblical archeology has certainly helped to convince some people and I think that the more we find, the more the historical Bible accounts will be verified. However, no amount of science or archeology will be able to prove the main claims of the Bible - namely that God is personal, that he reveals himself, that Christ was fully God and fully man, etc.

The greatest witness to the truth of the Scriptures is itself (as strange as that may sound) and the transformed lives of those who believe. The apostles started as middle class, uneducated men who dropped everything to follow Christ, but did not understand fully what God was doing till after the resurrection. They, like all Jews, thought Christ would be an earthly Messiah who would save the Jews from the Romans and usher in another glorious kingdom. The reality of what Christ accomplished was beyond any of their imaginations, so it was not something they could possibly make up. Before Christ’s death, they bickered about who would be first in the kingdom, they ran away when it got tough, and they kept a low profile after Christ’s death for fear of the religious leaders. After the resurrection, all the apostles spoke out boldly about Christ. Obviously, they believed the message they preached and were willing to die for it. According to tradition, Peter was crucified upside down, Matthew was killed by the sword in Ethiopia, Thomas was stabbed with a spear in India, Nathanael was flayed to death, and James the brother of Jesus was thrown from the roof of the temple. This is strong evidence for the resurrection.

The other evidence for the truth of the Bible is the consistency of the message of Scripture. God did not dictate word for word to the writers, but each person wrote as he was led by the Spirit of God in his own style and with his own vocabulary. The Bible was written over a period of about two thousand years by many different authors and they all are consistent in their picture of who God is and what it is that pleases God. I realize that there are Apocrypha books that vary from the picture presented by the rest of Scripture, but these books were generally written later and by unknown authors. There are lots of things that can be said about the creation of the canon of Scripture, but what we do have as canon is consistent in its message. Compare the Bible to the Koran which was written solely by the prophet Mohammed. The Koran is inconsistent to the point that apparently Muslim scholars say that the later parts of the Koran trump the earlier because of continuous revelation, or something along those lines.

The power of the Gospel is still evident in modern times. I visited India a few years back and witnessed an incredible fervor for Christ that I had rarely seen elsewhere. There is a province in India called Mizoram that is dirt poor with about 1 million people and a GDP of about 700 million. The area is mountainous and houses are perched on poles on one side because there is not enough flat ground for even a soccer field. Incredibly, however, the literacy of the population sits at 90% - second in all of India. Not only that, but even without any social programs like welfare, there are no homeless people in Mizoram. Why is this? It can be directly linked to the strong Christian presence in the province. Over 90% of the province call themselves Christian. A century ago, the Mizo people were head hunters and a thorn to the British occupiers of India. Now churches in Mizoram are sending missionaries not only to other parts of India, but all over the world. The social centers of the communities are the churches, the homeless are given shelter and work, and the mentally challenged are cared for in facilities run by the churches (the street dogs, however, tend to get picked up and cooked for dinner). It is incredible to walk in to a facility for the mentally challenged in Mizoram and see smiling faces expressing their thankfulness to God as best as they can or to walk into an orphanage and listen to a choir of children who taught themselves Handel’s Messiah just by listening to it numerous times. Before I had ever heard of Mizoram, I met an environmental scientist in Canada who had been to Mizoram to study the native plants. He had left a staunch naturalist and then returned to Canada badly shaken and questioning his beliefs. This incredible life-changing power found only in the Gospel is what really demonstrates the truth of the Bible.

 

[Physicist]

Nitpick

Compare the Bible to the Koran which was written solely by the prophet Mohammed. The Koran is inconsistent to the point that apparently Muslim scholars say that the later parts of the Koran trump the earlier because of continuous revelation, or something along those lines.

.

I would agree that religious experience is the strongest selling point for any particular religion. I apologize for a minor nitpick here. I don't think that Muhammed actually wrote the Q'uran. Instead, tradition says it was given to him by the angel Gabriel and he told it to his followers. After Muhammad's death, Abu Bakr compiled these teachings to form the original Qur'an which was copied and spread by the Muslims.

 

[izzy]

I would agree that religious experience is the strongest selling point for any particular religion. I apologize for a minor nitpick here. I don't think that Muhammed actually wrote the Q'uran. Instead, tradition says it was given to him by the angel Gabriel and he told it to his followers. After Muhammad's death, Abu Bakr compiled these teachings to form the original Qur'an which was copied and spread by the Muslims.

Ok, you're right. Muhammad did not write the Qur'an (Koran) himself, but his followers wrote down his words later. And yes, you are being nitpicky, but that's good. I have caught myself on occasion writing something as if it were fact without citation or without proper research. Not good.

Anyway, Physicist, I hope you don't mind if I try to dissect where you are coming from. I'm trying to determine whether you are a pure naturalist who believes that religion is written in the human genetic code and is something that is essential for society or whether you actually allow for the existence of a Creator and a spiritual realm. At any rate, I would probably classify you as a humanist - humanism being the most common form of thought in modern philosophy.

As I understand, humanists are generally naturalists who believe that religion is written into the human DNA and cannot be taken out of society or the society falls apart. According to humanism, every major religion shares a basic set of ethical rules that adherents are supposed to follow and that promote peace and goodwill. Things like the Golden Rule and some of the Ten Commandments are pretty universal. To have a functioning society, there must be some rules like these for everyone, because it is only through trust and cooperation that anything significant is accomplished. Take China, for example. So far, Communism has tried to stifle all religion, but the only thing the state has accomplished in teaching its citizens is that money is the be all and end all. This has created a corrupt, power hungry upper class and the government of China is realizing this and opening up the country to religion once again.

Humanism has its roots in the nineteenth century with thinkers like Nietzsche. Yes, Nietzsche is the one who declared that “God is dead,†but he wasn’t happy about it. Nietzsche was a nihilist, meaning that he did not believe in an afterlife, just annihilation, but he realized that to keep society functioning, there needed to be a sense of what is good and a belief in reward for doing that good. Christianity, according to Nietzsche, was one of the best “myths†for a good society and that’s why he was sad that it had been killed (but apparently God wasn’t as dead as he thought). In Nietzsche’s thinking, if most people understood that there was just a void of meaninglessness, they would cease to bother being good and live only for themselves and this would destroy society. Nietzsche, like many humanists, hoped that humanity would someday create the “ubermenschâ€, the super-human or the master race that eventually would even be capable of defeating natural death. Problem was, people like the Nazis took this philosophy as well as Darwinism as the basis for eugenics and eliminating those considered unworthy of reproducing. Obviously this was wrong - but by whose standards? What is evil and what is good anyway?

Basically, we could debate our specific beliefs about the Scriptures to no end, but I’m beginning to realize that we will never agree. This is because our basic assumptions about what the universe is like - our a priori - are very different. You make core assumptions about the universe and so do I. This is the only way a worldview can be created. Descartes tried to philosophize without any core assumptions; he did not even assume that his body or the world around was real. The only conclusion Descartes could come up with is “I think, therefore I am,†meaning that he could only be sure of one thing - his thoughts and his mind existed... somewhere... somehow. One cannot live on this truth alone.