Can We Trust the Bible?

B-Hebrew policies. Participants are required to abide by these policies. If you have questions about them, please discuss in the Questions forum.
Forum rules
If you have a question or wish to discuss any policy, please post in the Questions forum.
R.J. Furuli
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:51 am

Can We Trust the Bible?

Postby R.J. Furuli » Sun Mar 24, 2019 4:45 am

Dear list-members.

I will presend my new book: Can We Trust the Bible? With focus on the Creation Account, the Worldwide Flood, and the Prophecies.
Epub format, 1,550 pages, 1,131 photos, 32 maps, and 9 graphs. (www.gramma.dk)

I have studied both geology and Semitic languages, and the book discusses these subjects.

REVIEW

THE CREATION ACCOUNT
1) The Mesopotamian creation accounts and the creation account in the Bible are given fresh translations.
2) All the creation accounts are treated as if they were historical accounts.
a) The Mesopotamian accounts contains much mythology.
b) The account in the Bible does not contain mythology, and there are no examples that it borrowed anything from the Mesopotamian accounts.
3) The views of heaven, the underworld, the geography of the earth, and the destiny of man in the Bible and Mesopotamian accounts are discussed.
4) The creation account in Genesis is treated as an historical account, and is compared with the geologic column and the fossils in the rocks.
a) The order of the creation of the kingdoms of living organisms in Genesis 1 is the same as the order of the geologic column, with one exception. Genesis says that plants came before the other kingdoms of life.
b) Evidence of plant remains from the Cambrian and Precambrian in Europe, Asia, and South and North America is given. This shows that the plants came first, and that the creation account is correct.

THE WORLDWIDE FLOOD
1) The Mesopotamian accounts and the account in Genesis about the great Flood are given fresh translations. There are so many similarities in the accounts that they must have a common origin.
2) The origin of erratic boulders, moraine, and sand are believed to be moving glaciers. The force by which glaciers move is gravity, and a tilted plane is needed for that movement.
Such tilted planes are short and few, and the evidence presented shows that a great part of the phenomena ascribed to glaciers were caused by one or more enormous floods of water.
3) Seven hundred photos of the surface of the earth from all over the world, including the tropics, present erratic boulders, moraine, and sand that moving glaciers could not have caused.
a) Millions upon millions of erratic boulders—a great number with percussion marks that only could have been made by collisions in water moving with high speed—exist in southern Norway and in many other countries.
b) Erratic boulders of several hundred tons have been moved several hundred kilometers in different directions. These could have been moved by a huge flood, but not by glaciers,
c) Millions upon millions of erratic boulders in the mountains of Norway and other countries—some weighting several hundred tons have been elevated 1,000 or more meters from their places of origin. Glaciers cannot move rocks upwards.
d) One assemblage of 200 million tons of fine sorted sand exists in southern Norway. This sand must have been sorted by huge amounts of flowing water and not by ice.

4) The litmus test for the issue whether ice or water formed the surface of the earth is what we find at retreating glaciers. Thirty thousand pictures of 1,200 glaciers that partially have melted have been examined. One single picture of these have some resemblance with the erratic boulders in southern Norway, but no picture shows even a small assemblage of sorted sand. Two hundred pictures of melted glacier snouts are presented in order to show the evidence.
5) Two enormous floods occurred a few thousand years ago: the Missoula flood in the USA and the Altai Flood in Siberia. In contrast with the remains of melted glaciers, these floods caused exactly the same phenomena as we see in southern Norway and in other countries: huge amounts of erratic boulders—some being transported hundreds of kilometers—and great amounts of moraine and sand.
6) Most important are what we see in the tropics: 350 photos of millions upon millions of erratic boulders and huge assemblages of moraine and sand in 94 countries in Africa, South America, Asia, Australia, and Pacific islands, are presented. In northern countries,
these phenomena would have been ascribed to glaciers. But glaciers have not existed in the tropics in the Quaternary.

THE PROPHECIES
1) Was the book of Isaiah written in the eighth century BCE by one author?
a) Hebrew perfect with future reference is rare. I have translated 224 clauses having perfects with future reference, and they occur both in chapters 1-39 and 40-65. Imperfect consecutive with future reference is also rare. I translated 40 clauses with imperfect consecutives with future reference spread over the whole book. These numbers indicate that one author wrote all the 66 chapters.
b) The fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 53 is discussed in detail. This prophecy was fulfilled after 29 CE, and the oldest manuscript of Isaiah is dated in the second century CE. This suggests that the author of the book was an honest person, and his dating in the eithth century is correct.

2) Was the book of Daniel written in the sixth century BCE?
a) For linguistic data suggesting a writing date in the sixth century, see my book: When Was the Book of Daniel Written? A Philological, Linguistic, and Historical Approach.
b) The prophecy in Daniel chapter 9 about the 70 weeks are discussed in detail. It was fulfilled in between 29 and 70 CE, and the oldest fragment of Daniel is dated in the last part of the second century BCE. This suggests that the author of the book was an honest person, and his dating in the sixth century is correct.

3) The fulfillments of different prophecies in Daniel and Isaiah are discussed in detail. The creation account and the account of the worldwide Flood have been discussed as if they were historical accounts. Contrary to the view of most scholars, there is much archaeological and geological evidence that supports these accounts, and there is no clear evidence that contradicts them.

Therefore, the positive answer is: “Yes, we can trust the Bible!”


Best regards,

Rolf

User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Can We Trust the Bible?

Postby SteveMiller » Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:39 pm

Rolf,
Sounds like a great book, but expensive for a subject that is not my primary interest.

What do you think about the division of the land mass on earth into separate continents? Do you think it was caused by Noah's flood?
Do you think the Grand Canyon in the U.S. was caused by the flood?

How do you explain that there are no dinosaurs around, yet they once covered the earth? If they were alive at the same time as man, then they would have been on the ark.

Thanks
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)

Guest

Re: Can We Trust the Bible?

Postby Guest » Mon Apr 01, 2019 12:46 am

Dear Steve,

The price of 280 Danish kroner for a book iof 1,550 pages should be reasonable. To make the Word-document into E-pub format with so many pages, pictures and footnotes was a huge endeavor—it took 400 hours by a professional company.

My book has 350 pictures of erratic boulders, moraine, and sand from 94 coutries in the tropics. In the northern part of the northern hemisphere these phenomena would have been ascribed to glaciers. But glaciers have not existed in the tropics. In order to account for the erratics, moraine, and sand it has been postulated that the continents 200 million years ago were located around Antarctica as the supercontinent Gondwana. Thus, the glacial remains in the tropics stems from the Gondwana continent. Later the continents gradually parted until they got the present position. This postulate is discussed in detail in the book, and it is shown that Antarctica had a warm climate with palms and other tropical plants in the time when Gondwana should have existed. Moreover, continental drift is a theory that cannot be proven, and there are no proofs, nor even evidence, that that continent in the past had different positions from the present.

A popular creationst view is that the earth is only a few thousand years old, and that all the sedimentary rocks were made by the Flood. Genesis 1.1 shows that the sun, moon, stars, and the earth, were created "in the beginning," so, they may be billions of years old. The remnants of the Flood evidently are the unconsolidated sediments and tillites on the top of sedimentary rocks. The sedimentary rocks themselves were made during the six creation "days," and the fossils in them evidently were made by catastrophes during these days (fossils are of catastrophic origin).

The origin of Grand Canyon and other water gaps are discussed in detail. Indirectly, the Flood may have contributed to the formation of the Grand Canyon. When huge amounts of water fell down on the earth, the ocean floors were pressed down (much evidence for this exists), and land forms were elevated. This could have caused cracks in the land that developed into water gaps. One modern example of such cracks is seen in the Afar desert in Ethiopia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf49tJUYhqM).

The aim of the book is to show that the creation account and the account of the Flood in Genesis accords with all our scientific knowlegde. One linguistic side of this is a detailed analysis of what the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 says and not says.


Best regards,

Rolf

kwrandolph
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 12:51 am

Re: Can We Trust the Bible?

Postby kwrandolph » Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:29 am

SteveMiller wrote:How do you explain that there are no dinosaurs around, yet they once covered the earth? If they were alive at the same time as man, then they would have been on the ark.


Who says that there are no dinosaurs around today? There are many historical references made to what we today call dinosaurs, as well as many artistic depictions. There are still reports from very remote places that dinosaurs still roam those areas.

There are many historic questions that science can’t touch because they are history. Post-modern science is a different story, but I was taught modern science.

The Bible is a record of God’s actions into history, starting with the creation of the universe. It’s true history, without being exhaustive history listing every detail.

Yes, I’m a “young-earth creationist” because that’s what the Bible teaches.

Karl W. Randolph.

User avatar
SteveMiller
Posts: 350
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:53 pm
Location: Detroit, MI, USA
Contact:

Re: Can We Trust the Bible?

Postby SteveMiller » Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:30 am

kwrandolph wrote:Yes, I’m a “young-earth creationist” because that’s what the Bible teaches.


That's an interpretation of Gen 1.
Mankind is 6k-8k years old depending on whether you use the MT or LXX chronology.
I understand it that the Bible Chronology goes back to Gen 1:3, when God said, Let there be light, which began the 1st of the 7 days.
Gen 1:1 when God created the heavens and the earth are before the Bible chronology begins.
Sincerely yours,
Steve Miller
Detroit
http://www.voiceInWilderness.info
Honesty is the best policy. - George Washington (1732-99)

User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Can We Trust the Bible?

Postby Jason Hare » Sat Apr 06, 2019 6:37 pm

Is there a requirement that one be a biblical literalist or uphold a certain theological or doctrinal statement in order to be a participant in good standing at B-Hebrew?

Inquiring minds want to know.

I do not personally think that "trusting the Bible" is a particularly academic pursuit. The Bible needs to be viewed as a document of its time; more accurately, as a set of documents from their times. The questions of inerrancy and inspiration come on the back of some theological assumptions that I am not willing to make (because of a large set of causes that are beyond the bounds of discussion here).

Hence, a follow-up to my question above: to what extent are personal religious opinions germane to good discussion and cordial discourse on the forum?
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

User avatar
Kirk Lowery
Site Admin
Posts: 227
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 12:03 pm
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Can We Trust the Bible?

Postby Kirk Lowery » Sat Apr 06, 2019 6:58 pm

Jason,

Our charter is summarized here: http://bhebrew.biblicalhumanities.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3.

B-Hebrew is intended as a public forum, which means all types of faith commitments (and no faith commitment) will be found here. B-Hebrew is about the biblical language and texts, which includes the message and necessarily the theology of the Hebrew Bible. So those topics are within the charter. From time to time the threads will cross the line. Usually the departure is of short duration, and I simply don't have the time or desire to be a "nazi" about the rules. Twenty-some years of moderating this forum has shown that it is impossible to divorce personal opinions -- religious or otherwise -- from discussions of a religious document(s). We do not tolerate proselyting or any kind of hate speech, etc. But one's presuppositions, worldview and opinions are going to come out from time to time.

I allowed Rolf's initial post, as he's been an active and respectful contributor to this forum. I do agree that the thread has wandered outside the bounds. So I ask that we discontinue this topic.

I also ask for the members' understanding: I am the sole moderator and site administrator, living on the East Coast of the United States, whereas our members are from around the globe. Sometimes threads go off track before I see it. I also have a life outside of b-hebrew. :D
Kirk E. Lowery, PhD
B-Hebrew Site Administrator & Moderator
blog: https://blogs.emdros.org/eh

User avatar
Jason Hare
Posts: 196
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 5:07 am
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Can We Trust the Bible?

Postby Jason Hare » Sat Apr 06, 2019 7:35 pm

Kirk Lowery wrote:Jason,
I also ask for the members' understanding: I am the sole moderator and site administrator, living on the East Coast of the United States, whereas our members are from around the globe. Sometimes threads go off track before I see it. I also have a life outside of b-hebrew. :D


Thanks for the clear response. :)

Twenty years is a huge commitment. You've done an amazing job, and I'm sure you'll continue to do so. No one is calling your decisions into question. :!:
Jason Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

Guest

Re: Can We Trust the Bible?

Postby Guest » Tue Apr 09, 2019 7:18 pm

Jason Hare wrote:Is there a requirement that one be a biblical literalist or uphold a certain theological or doctrinal statement in order to be a participant in good standing at B-Hebrew?


The short answer: No.

The long answer: Nope.

When I first joined, I was probably the only Biblical literalist who regularly posted. There were calls for me to be expelled from the group. I’m glad the moderators didn’t listen to those calls.

Basically, there are certain rules that can be distilled down to:

• Don’t be offended when people post belief statements that contradict your own.

• Don’t proselytize. I figure that those on this list who have different theological positions from mine are educated, and already know my theological position—if they have rejected mine why push it? I mention mine only as FYI.

• You don’t have to read and respond to everyone on this list. There are some on this forum whose posts here I refuse to read, let alone respond to them.

We’re here to discuss Biblical Hebrew language, which includes how to read certain passages of Tanakh. We’re not here to engage in theological battles.

Karl W. Randolph.


Return to “Policies”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest