Why believe the bible?

[Silver]

This does not, however, lead me to the conclusion that God doesn't use the Bible to speak to me.

This does not, however, lead me to the conclusion that Harry Potter doesn't use a book to speak to me.

If you can understand the silliness and irrationality of the above, you can apply the same logic to god and the bible.

[JairCrawford]

First you have to conjure up a god though, don't you?

Rather, what I am saying is while there is no internal evidence supporting the Bible being literally perfect, there -is- internal evidence to support that God can use it to speak to us.

I understand that not everyone will feel that said internal evidence within scriptural text is convincing enough in and of itself for various reasons. I know that many people will completely and utterly disagree with my beliefs and faith, but that is ok.

[Minimalist]

Why is it so difficult to accept that this stuff was not written, inspired or remotely derived from any supernatural being.  The simple fact is that like every other religion ever invented it was written by and serves the needs of the ruling class AT THAT TIME to keep in line the commons OF THAT TIME.

It is no longer THAT TIME.  It is TIME to toss it in the dustbin and start facing problems realistically without appealing to invisible friends.

[JairCrawford]

This does not, however, lead me to the conclusion that God doesn't use the Bible to speak to me.

This does not, however, lead me to the conclusion that Harry Potter doesn't use a book to speak to me.

If you can understand the silliness and irrationality of the above, you can apply the same logic to god and the bible.

Point taken.

I get where you are coming from in that anyone can make blind assertions about any book.

But at the end of the day, we have both investigated. I have made my investigations of scripture and so have you. Your investigations and questioning led you to reject it outright, while mine changed how I read it and the contexts behind it. Two different perspectives.

And I think we can acknowledge, regardless of our differences of interpretation, that the motivations behind the writing of the Bible and Harry Potter were totally different.

Still, I can see your argument. I can see where you're coming from.

[Jehanne]

Why is it so difficult to accept that this stuff was not written, inspired or remotely derived from any supernatural being.  The simple fact is that like every other religion ever invented it was written by and serves the needs of the ruling class AT THAT TIME to keep in line the commons OF THAT TIME.

It is no longer THAT TIME.  It is TIME to toss it in the dustbin and start facing problems realistically without appealing to invisible friends.

Read the Gospel of Matthew and then compare it to the Gospel of Peter. The are identical in their genre and stories.

Because, that's what they were, stories!

[Minimalist]

The nativity stories are totally different because they were invented by different authors at different times for different audiences.  That's because the original story lacked any nativity story at all.  It will piss xhristards off no end but "jesus evolved."

[Angrboda]

The notion that adam, man, created in the image of God, is also Adam, the first man with a soul, is supported in Genesis 5. In Genesis 5 it refers to man, adam, being made in the image of God, and goes on to describe the generation of Adam, the first man.

1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created. 3 When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. 4 Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.
Genesis 5:1-5, NASB

It's also supported by Genesis 9, which refers to man of Noah's time as alike being created in His image.

1 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 2 The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the [a]sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. 3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. 4 Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. 6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.
Genesis 9:1-6, NASB

[Silver]

The nativity stories are totally different because they were invented by different authors at different times for different audiences.  That's because the original story lacked any nativity story at all.  It will piss xhristards off no end but "jesus evolved."

Well, yeah, that's what fictional characters do. They "evolve". As a fiction writer, I know character evolution is important. So did primitive fiction writers who concocted "bible stories".

[JairCrawford]

The nativity stories are totally different because they were invented by different authors at different times for different audiences.  That's because the original story lacked any nativity story at all.  It will piss xhristards off no end but "jesus evolved."

You're referring to Markan Priority and the synoptic problem. Yes, there are discrepancies and they were written by different authors. That does not, however, require us to make the jump to the conclusion that the whole nativity was fabricated. That is a speculation.

[Drich]

Well, you're ignoring that Genesis 1 explicitly states that "adam" created at that time was created in God's image.

1 don't antagonize me. no one is this stupid.
2 No it absolutely does not unless you are speaking in a hebrew english hybrid. meaning you take the english translation for 15/16th of the passage and only use the hebrew word because it looks and sounds like the english word Adam and seek to push a bad translation. That is why you intentionally mislead me by posting the hebrew over english translation. it was the only document you could find to allow you to freely select a word. You and everyone else has to know how dishonest this practice is! Do you realy see me as being that dumb?

If you would have simply took ANY translated version's text, this should have corrected and stopped this mess you made.

 But I'm curious to know upon what basis do you rest this theory about the one referring to mankind in Genesis 1, and that it was a proper name in the second?

 Glob... Seriously? you are beating me over the head with a lexicon, and you don't understand that the "Adam of man kind/Humanity and the Adam a man's name is two different words?!?!? or rather has two different word meanings in the strongs? look up strong word number H120 and Strong's word number H121 do you see that 120 is a common masculine noun and 121 is a proper masculine noun EG a person's name?
That is why you can not find a translation to support your reading.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lex...H121&t=KJV
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...H120&t=KJV

Are you trying to suggest that God has the form of an ape man?  That would be contrary to all Jewish theology up to the present day.  Does God have DNA?

No I said God made man in the garden first between day 3 and 4 as genesis 2 is a recounting of day 3 and 4 and everything in chapter two (starting verse 5) is all about the garden narrative and adam H121 the first man and eve.

Day 6 man was man H120 made outside of the garden. This was not Adam H121 but man kind. H120 I don't presume to assign him monkey status unless you are a evolutionist. Then I simply point to the freedom for you to do so as needed.(meaning how long you think it took between the end of creation and the fall of man)

On the most basic level I am simply pointing out man h120 made to look like God was made on day 6 out side the garden, and man with a gd breathed soul was made between day 3 and 4. H121

Which again answers all the other former paradoxes about who adam's children married and the city cain fled to and where all of that came from. IE man outside the garden was genetically compatible with man inside the garden, the only difference was adam's people passed on the 'soul' while man outside the garde were making due with their body minds and spirits.

That said if the jews got everything their bible said... they would not still be jews. matter of fact the jew that remains today are the descendants of the pharisees that Jesus quarreled with as the Sadducees were all hunted down and executed in 70 ad, or they converted to christianity and were no longer counted as jews.

As I'm sure your well aware of but dishonestly hiding the fact that the hebrew word Adam also refers to Human kind. as my passage describes as all passages describe in the english when refering to gen1 NIV, NKJV KJV ETR ASV NASV all refer gen1 adam to humanity or man kind.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H120&t=KJV

Your citation of Strong's doesn't support the distinction you are making.  What does?  (According to the interlinear bible I consulted, Genesis 2 refers to "the man" (ha'adam).  Is that a proper name?)

See above Adam is strong word number H121 it is accented to be read as a proper masculine noun.

if you look up h121 it will give specific instances where Adam is being referred to as Adam the first man's name or a persian city later on. the instances in Genesis 2 and on are indeed examples that refer to the man's name when represented by H121. or H120 can also represent when used in the place of a proper masculine noun.

My understanding is that the word used in gen1 instances were contextually to refer to strong's word H119 which again is the same root word with a different (vowel/nekudot) this time the defination describing the flesh tone of red which describes a people which is why all bibles in gen 1 refer to man kind as the word use refers to man in general while the passage in gen 2 foreword refers to a person's name.

---

The notion that adam, man, created in the image of God, is also Adam, the first man with a soul, is supported in Genesis 5.  In Genesis 5 it refers to man, adam, being made in the image of God, and goes on to describe the generation of Adam, the first man.

1This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. 2 He created them male and female, and He blessed them and named them Man in the day when they were created. 3 When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth. 4 Then the days of Adam after he became the father of Seth were eight hundred years, and he had other sons and daughters. 5 So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died.
Genesis 5:1-5, NASB

It's also supported by Genesis 9, which refers to man of Noah's time as alike being created in His image.  

1  And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. 2 The fear of you and the terror of you will be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the [a]sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. 3 Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. 4 Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. 6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.
Genesis 9:1-6, NASB

See you found an all english translation when you think it suits you nice!

Secondly... So? This was established genesis 1 and 2 Genesis two says man was created in his image and Adam was compatible with man as they were the same save Adam and his people had souls.

The second bit simply points out that Noah was a direct descendant of Adam. What does that mean? it means that after the flood only those who have souls would populate the earth.