Arwenel, remember the question isn't whether it took away their sin, as in reforming the person on the inside. Only the Holy Spirit can do that. Also, that scripture is from Hebrews - a book directed toward Jews who lived after Christ's death, and who had returned unnecessarily to the old Law and sacrifices for their salvation. It was written to show them that that was not the way to salvation now that Christ had died.

The question is, did the sacrifices in Old Testament times do anything to cover the sin? Note, I do not say reform the person. But just make atonement for their sin, so that they may be forgiven for it. And according to the Old Testament books, it did do that at the time.

One of many examples:

He shall burn all the fat on the altar as he burned the fat of the fellowship offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for the man's sin, and he will be forgiven.

~Riella

While the Bible was written by fallible men, these men were simply scribes writing down what God told them to write. 2 Timothy 3:16 says "ALL SCRIPTURE is God-breathed..." Inspired and God-breathed are the same thing. It pretty much says everything that is in the Bible, while physically written by men, are as though God wrote it himself in the same way an order written by a king's scribe would carry the authority if written by the king himself.

This is where we diverge. I think that the books of the Bible were written by men and selected by God to become part of the Bible. For example, I think that the Chronicles were written as court records, Jonah was written as a satire, and the Gospel of Mark was a compilation of various eyewitness acounts and traditions meant to be a testimony of Christ. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this excludes God from the creative process. God is pretty much involved in every part of our lives. The Holy Spirit was no doubt very involved in the "creative process", but I doubt they were aware of it. There is wiggle room here too (I'm not against the idea of the prophets dictating God's direct word e.g. "Thus says the Lord"...). So the author of Genesis 1 wrote from his cosmological worldview (God didn't strike him with the correct scientific knowledge, but still used him), but science or cosmology isn't the point of Genesis 1.

The idea of the authors of the Bible being God's "scribes" and copying down His words verbatim runs into a few problems for me. For one, every author has a different personality and writing style. Reading Paul is different from reading Isaiah etc. And also there is very little evidence that many of the writers of the Bible thought of their works as God's Word (for example Joshua doesn't begin The Bible: Chapter Six). The Bible is a library of different books, not one long book. The sooner this is more widely known the better.

If the Bible is the word of God, we must accept ALL of it including the account of creation. [...] Yet there are over 300 NT references to these passages alone and a large portion of Christian doctrine is rooted in Genesis 1-11. Just a small portion of the list: the 7-day week, marriage, sin, death as punishment of sin, clothing, work vs toil, the promise of a Savior, and more. .

But I do accept Genesis 1-11 as God's Word... just not in the same way I accept the Gospel of Mark for example as God's Word. Different books for different functions. Why could stories like the Tower of Babel not be viewed as an allegory or a myth? This type of story-telling seems very in character for God. Jesus, after all, spoke in parables.

Man is given dominion over all the animals. Another critical part of Genesis 1 doctrine. If we came from animals, that would be a different matter. If we came from animals, why do we wear clothes and no one else?

Because Man has been separated from the rest of the animal kingdom for a larger destiny. We wear clothes, we reason, we believe in God etc. I don't know any animals who follow suit. Saying our race descended from animals doesn't mean we are no different than chimps. My Bio teacher (an atheist btw) said that the dawn of human consciousness could have happened within one generation. It would be "miraculous" (his words), but not impossible. Indeed the "Great Leap" from ape to Man happened extraordianrily quickly, far quicker than the usual evolutionary developments which happen over vast amounts of time. We can reason, believe in God, and no right from wrong like the angels (and resemble our Creator, thus being "made in the image of God" and separated from the animals), but we can also eat, have sex, and have a heartbeat like the animals.

Reepicheep, why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? I think it's quite possible for the examples you gave to be both God-breathed and to have different purposes eg. the Chronicles - court records, Jonah - satire, and the Gospel of Mark - a compilation of various eyewitness accounts and traditions meant to be a testimony of Christ.
I believe the authors were very much aware that God was guiding their words (in the OT) and the Holy Spirit (in the NT). Naturally, each author had their own personality and writing style but the content of their writing was divinely revealed to them. The writers of the Bible did know they were writing God-breathed words, you only have to read the Bible to see this. As for the Bible being a library of books, or just one long book, how does that have anything to do with whether or not it's God-breathed?

Yes, different books have different purposes but why would the Creation story and the Tower of Babel be presented as historical events, when they're 'meant' to be understand as myth? It just doesn't make sense. It's only recently that people have begun to see the stories as myths to explain humankind's beginnings. Only with the advent human reasoning being key and divine revelation being told to take a backseat (the Dark Ages weren't so dark, they were a time of great discovery and revelation, the Enlightenment wasn't so enlightening, it wished to take God out of the equation). Yes, Christ talked in parables but it's evident what is meant to be read as parable and what isn't a parable.

I agree that were have been separated from the animal kingdom for a larger destiny. Why do you take the words of your Biology teacher as fact, when you admit he's an atheist, and then question the Bible? It's great to question the Bible to grow in your understanding of God, it's not great to use human reasoning to try to discredit God's Word. I think you need to put more stock in Bible. The 'great' leap from apes to man never happened. God molded Adam and breathed life (his Truth) into him. Please think about what you really believe and why. Don't just take people's words at face value.

The Bible is meant to be explored, it's not a surface book. Ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit, put trust in God, not human reasoning. Reason and revelation go hand-in-hand, but that's a form of reason inspired by a godly worldview.

As far as the distinction between soul and spirit. My pastor has spoken of it often and frequently quotes the reference, but I don't remember it. I do know in the Psalms when David say "Oh, my soul, Oh, my soul", he is taking about emotions. There are others, but I can't think of them off the top of my head.

As far as animal blood COVERING sin...a little clarification. Covering sin did not take away the issue. Only by removing sin could the issue be fully dealt with. Covering is a temporary picture whereas remission is the real deal.

Reep, where we split about the authority of the Scripture is the root of the differences we have. I have heard the attempts to put Noah's Flood and the Tower of Babel as myth. It doesn't work. I've heard how Moses based Noah's Flood off the Sumarian Epic of Gilgamesh. Not true. Just one detail I'll specifically address that demonstrates why. The size of their respective arks. Gilgamesh's ark was 180 cubits in all directions: a cube. Imagine trying to stay vertical in that thing. Noah's Ark was 450x50x45 feet. This is the PERFECT ratio that balances strength, stability, and comfort. It is also the same ratio used in the majority of ship building today, namely cargo ships and aircraft carriers. It is also the largest possible dimensions for a wooden vessel to float. A myth doesn't have those kind of details.

I strongly recommend looking up Bodie Hodge's talk on the Tower of Babel (he's with Answers in Genesis). He's getting a book ready to release on the issue next year. But he was able to trace the majority of the languages and people groups to one incident: the Tower of Babel. Ethnologue and VistaWide World Languages have traced the 7000 known languages down to a maximum of 94 language families. (for example the Romance Languages of Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, are based off Latin). Count the family heads in Genesis 10 between Noah's three sons and Peleg (whose birth is often used to pinpoint the dispersion of the Tower of Babel) and you get a minimum of 78 families. That's in the ball park. It is also interesting to note that many of the locations and regions in Europe, West Asia, and Africa are named after one of those names in Genesis 10. Ethiopians still call themselves Cushists after Ham's son, Cush. Egypt in Hebrew is Mizriam, another of Ham's sons. We have the Tubal and Tiras Rivers, named after Tubal and Tiras. The list goes on (I don't have it with me as I am out of town this weekend). What I also understand is that some of the Greek gods are named after the early patriarchs after Japeth. And it makes sense. In Genesis 11, the first person recorded to die post Flood was Peleg, five generation after Noah. Noah, Shem, Aparaxed and Peleg's own father outlived him. Noah may have been a contemporary of Abraham. Shem certainly was and even may have outlived Abraham. If your great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandfather outlives you, you'd think maybe he was immortal. Shem did die but Peleg and Abraham may not have thought that.

I have heard the argument of Jesus used parables to teach, so why not Genesis? It doesn't work. The context does not allow it. The Bible is full of every major literary genre. History, poetry, parable, prophecy, and even romance. The context is very clear about which genre is used. In every parable, it is obvious Jesus is speaking and the narrator of the Gospel tells us it is a parable. In prophecy, the narrator tells us the prophet had a vision or that the Lord told him to say something. In history, the voice is a narrator telling a non-fiction story. It is important to note who is speaking when determining how to read a passage. 1 Samuel is a historical book, but 1 Samuel 2 is not historical. Hannah's prayer is not to be read as historical narrative because Hannah is speaking a poem. So when Hannah talks about the "pillars of the earth" many OEC/TE/and AE will accuse YEC of believing the earth has literal pillars. But we do not believe that because we recognize that this passage is not historical narrative. Hannah is talking about how the earth is firm and stable, which pillars are used for in construction. Context is everything in determining which genre.

It is very difficult to believe naturally that 40 authors over a 1600 years span could write the Bible. That demonstrates the power of God and the fact that it is indeed God-breathed. It is totally consistent. Many skeptics will point out very specific, tiny details to demonstrate the Bible is inconsistent (such as a few "differences" in the Gospels) but they are very tiny differences and have no impact on primary theme of God coming down to save mankind from sin.

Reepicheep, why do the two have to be mutually exclusive?

I wouldn't say they're mutually exclusive, it just depends on your definition of "inspired" or "God-breathed". I think of it in a (sort of) similar way to predestination vs. free will. God had foreknowledge that I would be online right now, but it was still my decision to come online. God's foreknowledge doesn't interfere with my free will. Similarly, the author of Jonah might have wrote his book as a satire without having any idea that it would one day become part of a book called "the Bible". But God knew.

The writers of the Bible did know they were writing God-breathed words, you only have to read the Bible to see this. As for the Bible being a library of books, or just one long book, how does that have anything to do with whether or not it's God-breathed?

I see very little evidence for this. Most of the prophets seem to consider themselves "God's mouthpiece", but I can't say I see this attitude in the other books. Paul described Scripture as being "God-breathed" (I'd love to study that term further to see what Paul really meant by it), but I don't see any indication that he was referring to anything outside what we now call the Old Testament... much less the letter he was writing. Again, I'm not denying the Holy Spirit's involvement in the composition of Paul's letters, and Paul probably prayed for assisstance from the Holy Spirit before he wrote, but I don't think Paul was copying down God's whispers verbatim.

Yes, different books have different purposes but why would the Creation story and the Tower of Babel be presented as historical events, when they're 'meant' to be understand as myth?

But are they meant to be understood as history? Our concept of what history should be is different from what the ancients thought it should be. Our ancestors also understood myth better than we do. And besides, how many fictional books or myths start with "Now keep in mind this story didn't [literally] happen". That's bad story-telling. They begin "once upon a time".

It's only recently that people have begun to see the stories as myths to explain humankind's beginnings.

Not true. This interpretation in Christendom (it may well go further back in the Jewish tradition) goes as far back as St. Jerome (c. 370 - 420) and has had many advocates since then and before the Enlightenment. It picked up speed during the Enlightenment, of course. Also remember that our pre-Enlightenment ancestors weren't as obsessed as we are about journalistic objectivity and empirical evidence. I can't help but feel we're projecting our own cultural prejudices onto passages like Genesis 1 instead of seeing it through the eyes of the original audience. There is so much more interesting things going on in Genesis 1 than Old Earth Creationism/Young Earth Creationism/Intelligent Design/Evolutionism etc. Just once I'd like to hear a speaker talk about Genesis 1 without bringing up the confounded debate.

This was one of the objections I had to non-literal interpretation as well. It seems, and is often presented, as a modern reaction to modern science, but that isn't the case.

Why do you take the words of your Biology teacher as fact, when you admit he's an atheist, and then question the Bible? It's great to question the Bible to grow in your understanding of God, it's not great to use human reasoning to try to discredit God's Word.

It isn't just my Biology teacher, though. It's 99.9% of scientists and textbooks. Now, I'm not a scientifically inclined guy. Intellectually, my fields of interest are literature, history, philosophy, and religion. When I hear an atheist scientist talking about religion (or art for that matter), I want to beat my head against the desk, because he just doesn't get it. I always think, "Don't talk about things you don't understand". To be fair, I have to play the same game. I don't understand science, so I leave it to the professionals.

And again I'm not using my Biology teacher's (an atheist, yes, but more of a Trumpkin than a Miraz) words to "descredit the Bible". I used his words to learn about science. I don't see how I'm descrediting the Bible anyway. I still view the Bible as God's Word, very little has changed except that I can sleep intellectually (and spiritually!) better at night.

The Bible is meant to be explored, it's not a surface book. Ask for guidance from the Holy Spirit, put trust in God, not human reasoning. Reason and revelation go hand-in-hand, but that's a form of reason inspired by a godly worldview.

I have asked for guidance and this is where I've been led using scripture, tradition, and reason and, hopefully, led by the Spirit.

EDIT:

Fencer,

I've heard how Moses based Noah's Flood off the Sumarian Epic of Gilgamesh. Not true. Just one detail I'll specifically address that demonstrates why. The size of their respective arks. Gilgamesh's ark was 180 cubits in all directions: a cube. Imagine trying to stay vertical in that thing. Noah's Ark was 450x50x45 feet.

The Hunger Games was also based on the myth of Theseus and the Minotaur... but wait Katniss is a girl and Theseus was a guy. I guess THG couldn't be based on the myth after all.

Many skeptics will point out very specific, tiny details to demonstrate the Bible is inconsistent (such as a few "differences" in the Gospels) but they are very tiny differences and have no impact on primary theme of God coming down to save mankind from sin.

Exactly! There are inconsistencies in the Bible and the smallest inconsistencies would fly in the face of the idea of the Bible being God speaking directly to human scribes. The Bible isn't at all how it would be expected to look if that was the case. It isn't a spiritual encyclopedia, it's a collection of diverse books. I do see the Bible's creation as the power of God, but I see him working in a more subtle way than you do. My Biology teacher, C. S. Lewis, N. T. Wright etc. have played large roles in my rejection of "Biblical literalism", but honestly one of the biggest factors was simply reading the Bible cover-to-cover for myself and seeing what kind of book it is.

The rest of the points in you post, I believe I answered in my reply to Warrior.

Also, that scripture is from Hebrews - a book directed toward Jews who lived after Christ's death, and who had returned unnecessarily to the old Law and sacrifices for their salvation.

True, but "never" means "never", no matter what time-frame it's written in.

The difference between what God expected of those living pre-Christ and those now living after the Crucifixion has been something i've done a lot of thinking about over the past few years, and while i think i'm less confused than when i started, i haven't managed to resolve much even to my own personal satisfaction. Every angle seems to require some gymnastics to explain why this verse and that verse seem to contradict each other, or why this word over here doesn't mean exactly what it says.

I still believe the Bible is the infallible word of God (though i'm not getting into the other discussion in this thread). It just gets frustrating trying to get it all to make sense.

I don't see how animal sacrifices could ever "cover" sin, except as a sign of faith; in which case, it wasn't the sacrifice itself but the faith behind it. What about the Old Testament verses about it being atonement? Maybe it's like what Jesus said about divorce, how it was allowed at the time because the people's hearts were hard.

That's all i've got. I'll let someone else with more knowledge on this subject tackle this one.

Reepicheep, why do the two have to be mutually exclusive?

I wouldn't say they're mutually exclusive, it just depends on your definition of "inspired" or "God-breathed". I think of it in a (sort of) similar way to predestination vs. free will. God had foreknowledge that I would be online right now, but it was still my decision to come online. God's foreknowledge doesn't interfere with my free will. Similarly, the author of Jonah might have wrote his book as a satire without having any idea that it would one day become part of a book called "the Bible". But God knew.

Incidentally I was listening to an audiobook of The Silver Chair while doing the dishes last night and I thought this passage was relevant (I'm sure most here are familiar with the scenario, so I won't bother giving background):

The Knight laughed even more heartily than before. "You were the more deceived," he said. "Those words meant nothing to your purpose. Had you but asked my Lady, she could have given you better counsel. For those words are all that is left of a longer script, which in ancient times, as she well remembers, expressed this verse:

Though under Earth and throneless now I be,

Yet, while I lived, all Earth was under me.

"From which it is plain that some great king of the ancient giants, who lies buried there, caused this boast to be cut in the stone over his sepulcher; though the breaking up of some stones, and the carrying away of others for new buildings, and the filling up of the cuts with rubble, have left only two words that can still be read. Is it not the merriest jest in the world that you should have thought they were written to you?"

This was like cold water down the back for Scrubb and Jill; for it seemed to them very likely that the words had nothing to do with their quest at all, and that they had been taken in by a mere accident.

“Don't you mind him," said Puddleglum. "There are no accidents. Our guide is Aslan; and he was there when the giant king caused the letters to be cut, and he knew already all things that would come of them; including this.”

Hello everyone. Please Read the book of Enoch. This Ancient Truth of God that has been revealed through Enoch and details the fascinating work of the angels and the origin of Evil Spirits. This is Legit truth and will shape and change your life.

The book of Enoch is an interesting read but I don't believe it's part of God's Word. If it doesn't align with the Bible, then it's not the 'legit truth'.

I've been meaning to read the apocrypha for a while. I'm especially curious about the books included in the Catholic Bible, because while I lean towards Protestantism, I'm not Protesetant to the exclusion of Catholicism. I'm a Christian, first and foremost.

I've found out who my guardian angel is. We had a ceremony. Our little religious gatherings have been gaining followers lately. Through simple prayers of exultation and worship to our angels we were able to protect our house from the evil spirits and even converse and have elaborate conversations with the angels. Amazing things have been happening!

Stop it! Please, don't mess with that crap! We should only worship our creator, not angels, demons or people. You're treading dangerous spiritual ground, Moonlight. You're opening yourself to the very thing you're trying to overcome - evil spirits.

I've had experiences with people who have messed with the occult, believing in 'guardian spirits', and "praising the good angels that fight off the demons". It never ends well. Demons were once angels and they can still fake their former appearance. There are things you can involving the spiritual realm where once you do it, there is no turning back or "undo"ing. I have fought with some of these demons personally. It is not something you want to get yourself into. You will not find out that what you are dealing with is really the epitome of evil until it is too late and they have a complete grip on your life. This "guardian angel" is not of God, is not good in any way, and will seek to completely control your life, including your body. If you continue this path, I do fear possession will follow in the near future. I STRONGLY recommend getting some very strong Christians in your immediate physical circle of friends because it won't be long before you will need them for deliverance.

The book of Enoch is an interesting read but I don't believe it's part of God's Word. If it doesn't align with the Bible, then it's not the 'legit truth'.

Are there any references to the Book of Enoch in the existing canonical Bible? I know there are references in Genesis to the Book of Jubilees.

I've been meaning to read the apocrypha for a while. I'm especially curious about the books included in the Catholic Bible,

I don't know what version of the Bible is used, currently, in Catholic churches since I don't attend them as a rule, Catholicism not being my baptismal denomination. Though, I have learned that the Counter-Reformation Douai-Rheims version, produced by the English college in Douai, is said to be still used. I've a copy of this Douay-Rheims version which was translated from the Latin Vulgate about 1582, after the death of William Tindale (who translated from Hebrew), and which was produced by the Catholic Church as part of the Counter Reformation.

I understand the Douai-Rheims version, influenced either directly or indirectly by William Tindale's version, was revised extensively after the KJV was first produced. Douai-Rheims differs from the KJV mainly in the composition of the Old Testament. The style of language is definitely KJV, but is sort of mashed up a bit, so Isaiah becomes Isaias, and Jeremiah becomes Jeremias for example. The New Testament follows the same order as does the KJV version, but some books of the Old Testament have different names. Instead of 1 & 2 Kings & 1 & 2 Chronicles there are four books of Kings, and Song of Solomon is called Canticle of Canticles. There are no books of Samuel in the Douai version, whilst Ezra and Nehemiah become 1 & 2 Esdras. These books should deal with the historic return to and rebuilding of Jerusalem allowed by Cyrus the Mede, after his overthrow of the Babylonian empire of Nebuchadnezzar.

There are some entirely different books included in this version of the Bible. They include Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (as well as Ecclesiastes) 1 & 2 Paralipomenon, Baruch, Tobias or Tobit, and Judith or Judit. 1 & 2 Maccabees is a useful inclusion from a historical point of view, since otherwise we only have the Ancient Greek versions of what happened at this time in Middle Eastern history.

I don't think these are all the books of the Apocrypha actually. There may be others the Catholic church, itself, saw no reason to include in its main Biblical version. These may or may not include the Book of Enoch.

To elaborate a bit on wagga's excellent comments about Bible versions, I understand that newer versions used in the Catholic Church (such as The New American Bible) use the 'Protestant' names for the OT books where there is a difference (for example, 1 & 2 Kings and Chronicles instead of 4 books of Kings). In addition, Ecclesiasticus is often called Sirach, and there are additions to the books of Esther and Daniel.

Maccabees, as wagga noted, has historical value - it describes the events that are commemorated during Hannukah.

Are there any references to the Book of Enoch in the existing canonical Bible?

It is quoted in Jude 14,15:

It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”