The Bible is of Divine Origins

Thank You Con!!! REBUTTAL Con Claims, ["Bible is not what we would expect if it was of divine origins..... IF the Bible was explicit and unambiguous, then we would expect a significantly stronger consensus on these basic issues than we observe."] One Example Given by Con, ["Moreover on creation, there are sects that take the accounts of Genesis literally, which literally entails a 6 say creation myth and a 6,000 year old Earth, and others which do not take the days to mean 6 literal days.] First of all, Con's claim is only an assumption. The Bible is not what HE would expect if it was of divine origin. The Bible tells us that we must compare spiritual(Word of God) with spiritual(Word of God) in 1 Corinthians 2:13. Meaning, we are to compare what Peter said to what Paul said and what Paul said to what Jesus said and so on. The Bible also tells us to search the scriptures in John 5:39, and to study in 2 Timothy 2:15. So we must compare the writers of the Bible words with the writers of the Bible words. Then and only then will the Bible be revealed unto Con as what he would expect. Secondly, just as Con would expect a significantly stronger consensus about certain issues, I would expect more individuals to be obedient unto the verses above. Were they natural solar days of twenty-four hours each or were they long periods corresponding to millions of years of our time? If one follows the instructions given, one can receive a clear interpretation of the SEVEN days mentioned in Genesis 1. The word "day" is sometimes used to mean a period of time as "In the day that the Lord made the earth and the heavens" (Gen. 2:4) and "The day of temptation in the wilderness" (Ps. 95:8). We speak of the day of prosperity. The Hebrew word for "day" is "yom" and in the Authorized Version of the English Bible is translated more than 1100 times as "day", 67 times as "time", 30 times as "today", 18 times as "forever", 10 times as "continually", 6 times as "age", 4 times as "life", and 2 times as "perpetually". From this it appears that no one would be able to tell from the word "day" (yom) itself how long Moses intended to say each period was. The claim that the days mentioned by Moses were ordinary solar days of approximately twenty-four hours each is obvious for many reasons. In the first place, these days were half darkness and half light. What other kind of days have ever been thus? (Let it not be objected that the sun and moon were not made until the fourth day as light was brought into existence on the first day and may exist quite independently of the sun.) When a definite number precedes the word "yom" or "day" in scripture a solar day is always meant--never a long period. There were one hundred and fifty days of the flood (Gen. 8:3), forty days the spies were gone (Number 13:25) three days Jonah was in the belly of the fish (Jonah 1:17), and our Lord was seen after His resurrection forty days (Acts 1:3), and the Lord made heaven and earth in six days (Ex. 20:11). On the third day of Genesis the grass, trees and shrubs were created. If this day was a "long period, perhaps millions of years" how do these things live in darkness for half that period? God himself settles this question in Exodus 20:8-11, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labor and do thy work but the seventh is a sabbath unto Jehovah thy God...for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore Jehovah blessed the sabbath day and hallowed it." God gave the Jews the seventh day to keep as a sabbath; the original sabbath on which God rested was typical of this, hence both were twenty-four hour days. ((The objection is brought that "God is still resting in His sabbath" but Jesus said, "My Father worketh hitherto and I work (John 5:17). That God "rested" did not imply that He was tired but that He finished the work of Genesis 1 and hence "rested" from it. "God rested on the seventh day" (Gen. 2:2). "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because that in it He had rested" (Gen. 2:3). "God did rest the seventh day" (Heb. 4:4). God's period of rest on the seventh day had already closed when He blessed that day and gave it to Israel as a sabbath.)) The day mentioned in Genesis 1 had "evening and morning". The Jews still count time after this fashion, the day beginning at six in the evening, hence each day consists of "evening and morning". Finally, whoever thought in the first place that it was necessary for God to have long periods of time to do the work which Moses says He did in six days? It seems clear to me that the days of Genesis 1 were solar days of approximately twenty-four hours each. I believe that God used explicit language with direct and specific interpretations in this issue. Con claims, ["If God really had a hand in the composition of the Bible, then we would expect one, or at most a handful of writings directly attributed to him. While an argument can conceivably be made for events before and after Jesus" existence (enlightenment of God"s existence and deeds, original sin etc.) which would make a pragmatic case for two Books, the same cannot be made for the fact that there are 27 separate books within the New Testament and 39 within the Old Testament."] God's book is about salvation history and records the importance of the events leading to Christ. Con's assumption that the Bible is too long simply argues from his own criterion. How can Con possibly know how many books God would take to reveal himself? Can God use 100 words? 1000? 10000? Con's argument is subjective and specious. God had a purpose for each of the four Gospel accounts. Matthew wrote to the Jewish audience proving much scripture with prophecy. Mark wrote to the Roman audience. Luke wrote to the Greek audience proving Jesus to be perfect writing chronologically. John wrote about the basic deity of Christ and His miracles. Con claims, ["While it is possible debatable how long these days are in absolute timescales, the ordering of events are not. By taking the ordering of events into consideration, we are left concluding that the Sun was created after the Earth which is false. We are also left concluding that trees (day 3) appears on Earth before the creation of the Sun, Moon, Stars and complex lifeforms (day 4), despite trees not evolving until 400 million years ago, with the former examples significantly earlier (Cambrian explosion was 600 Mya, Sun & Moon 4.5 BYa).[5,6] I may expand on these in later rounds."] Con, I really believe you should just speak for yourself. Everyone isn't left concluding your interpretation. If we follow the instructions I noted earlier, the understanding will be clear. There is a vast difference between the words "create" and "make." "To create" is to make something which did not previously exist while "to make" implies the forming from existing materials. "A tailor makes a coat but he does not create the coat."The Hebrew word "bahrah" means absolute creation while the Hebrew word "ahsah" simply means to make from something already in existence. These are the words used in Genesis 1. ----- On the fourth day God caused the sun, moon and stars to appear in the heavens and made (ahsah) them our timekeepers. There is nothing in the text to indicate that they were just then created. Doubtless they had existed from the beginning as had the earth but were just now made to be our chronometers.18 No statement of this matter can be more conclusive than Genesis 2:3 where we read, "God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it He had rested from all His work which God created and made." Here we have both words in the same verse. Con claims, ["To attack the Noachian flood mythology, accepting a literal geneology places the Noachian flood around ~4400 years ago, however the expected evidence of this is completely absent from geological records.[7] Moreover evidence is also absent from dendrochronology, and is even weaker in light of the fact we have extant trees known to be greater than 4,400 years old.'] To defend the Noachian flood mythology, In March, 1919, the government of the United States launched its first concrete ship at San Francisco. The dimensions were 300 feet, by 50 feet, by 30 feet. This is the same proportion as the ark which Noah built. Even with all our modern development in shipbuilding we still hold to approximately the same proportions as those used by Noah in building his boat. Who taught Noah how to build ships? How did he know what proportions to make his ark? The ark was built of gopher wood. If Noah had used some other sort of wood, the material would have perished before he finished the boat, but God, who made the laws of nature, was also the architect of the boat which Noah built. Con claims, ["IF the Bible was intended by God as an accurate narrative with specific information about God, morality, and instructions regarding salvation and worship, then we would expect that God would ensure that the message of the Bible was preserved."] God did ensure that the message of the Bible was preserved in Matthew 24:35, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." There are types and anti-types, shadows and substances which are revealed to the one who wants to know the truth. Though scholars will never fully comprehend the message, little children can understand its basic message. Con's arguments are subjective. The Bible never contradicts itself. Con assumes some things are false. Con has only accused the Bible of being wrong, he has not proven his case, nor can he. P1) IF the Bible was of divine origins, then we would expect X P2) "X" (Is true) C) The Bible I will make my argument next round.