How can you say, "ALL the Bible is directly from God"?

[Orion]

In another topic, I was discussing with another member about my problems with seeing all that is in the Bible as "word for word, straight from the mouth of God". I know it is one of the biggest claims of the Christian church, shared by many denominations. I just don't happen to share it.

Where is it stated that "every single word is directly from the mouth of God? 2 Timothy 3:16 talks about a writer's inspiration, but that doesn't equate to direct dictation.

Let me propose the following:

From whom is the words, written in the Psalms, coming from? Who was it that was writing down his thoughts when a pursuing Saul had intentions of killing? Why can't the words of David stand on their own without people saying that those words were just from God, and David "took the dictation down"? Why couldn't it have been David who was expressing his own thoughts? Why is that "less holy"?

When David expressed the pain and sorrow of not feeling God in his struggle and emptiness, doesn't it take away from it to say that it was just God's words and David was writing them down? Was God sad that God wasn't there? Does that make sense?

When David expresses praise to God for being David's rock and fortress, if it is only God praising himself, to me that seems empty. What good is it to praise yourself? Why couldn't these songs of praise be FROM David TO God and they have even MORE meaning to them than if they were "just the words coming from the mouth of God"?

Please don't hastily answer this with traditional Christian phrases that we've all heard a thousand times. THINK on this topic for awhile!

Thanks.

 

[handy]

I guess I have a different understanding of what inspired means. I've been to a number of different churches, ranging from strict Calvinist to Church of the Nazarene, and in none of them does the idea that the writers of the Bible were writing, "word for word, straight from the mouth of God."

"Inspired" comes from the Greek word "theopneustos" which means "divinely breathed in". While I guess some can assume this means straight dictation, I've always been taught, and understand it to mean that God breathed His truth into the words. This makes the Bible fully and completely reliable in it's message to us.

I agree with you Orion, that the Bible isn't a book containing only God's thoughts. Psalm 51is a heartfelt confession of David's regarding his sin with Bathsheba, it isn't meant to be understood that God sinned in any way. But, it is nonetheless inspired, "God-Breathed" in that it's message of repentence and forgiveness stands true to all men for all time.

When Paul records the confrontation between him and Peter regarding Peter's hypocrisy in Galatians 2, we need to understand that Paul was writing what he and Peter experienced, not a spiritual message from God. But, it too is "God-Breathed" in that God inspired Paul to record this uncomfortable incident to serve as an example to us that a: even leaders such as Peter are not perfect; b: we do need to confront the sin of our leaders, and c: how it should be done and why.

I'm not sure of which churches teach that the Bible is somehow to be understood as only a first-person narrative of God's, but it really doesn't work that way.

I will stand firm though on the Bible's inspiration and its inerrancy in it's message from God to us.

 

[nadab]

David said, at 2 Samuel 23:2, that "the spirit of Jehovah it was that spoke by me, and his word was upon my tongue." The apostle Peter, at Acts 1:16, referred to David being inspired by God when he told those in the upper room in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost, 33 C.E., that "it was necessary for the scripture to be fulfilled, which the holy spirit spoke before hand by David's mouth about Judas (Iscariot at Psalms 41:9)."

Thus, God did not "dictate" the Bible, but rather, by means of his unseen holy spirit, "God-breathed"(Greek, the·o´pneu·stos as at 2 Tim 3:16) his thoughts into some 40 different secretaries, including David, having them write these down. These were able to put God's thoughts into writing over a period of some sixteen hundred years, from 1513 B.C.E. with Moses writing the first five books to about 96-98 C.E. with the apostle John writing Revelation, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John.

At 2 Peter 1:20,21, the apostle Peter says of Bible prophecy: "You know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any any private interpretation. For prophecy was at no time brought by man's will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit." Thus, all the prophetic utterances in the Bible are "God-breathed".

Jesus, only days before his ignominious death outside Jerusalem, asks the Pharisees concerning Psalms 110:1 and the Christ: "How, then, is it that David by inspiration calls him 'Lord', saying 'Jehovah said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies beneath your feet ?"(Matt 22:43,44) The parallel account at Mark 12:36 reads "by the holy spirit." David was inspired by God to write that his "Lord", Jesus Christ, would sit at God's "right hand" until God's appointed time for him to receive the "kingdom" in 1914. He would then "go subduing in the midst of his enemies."(Ps 110:2)

Of Jesus himself as "a twig out of the stump of Jesse", Isaiah 11:2 says that "upon him the spirit of Jehovah must settle down" which gave him "wisdom...understanding....counsel....mightiness...knowledge." Hence, God's holy spirit helped to guide Jesus thoughts and actions, causing him to be able to be the "Christ of God".(Luke 9:20) He thus uttered sayings that were from God and that were written down in the four gospel accounts.

God allowed David, as at Psalms 32 and 51, to express his "pain and sorrow". Others, too, also wrote down their feelings in harmony with God, as Asaph did at Psalms 73, and Habakkuk expressed at Habakkuk 1:2-4 or Jeremiah at Jeremiah 20:7-9. Thus, the Bible, although a message from God, has the warmth, variety, and appeal of the human touch. It is not just a book of "do's and don'ts". God allowed these faithful men to express their heartfelt concerns and allowed them to put these down in writing for all who feel "oppressed"(Eccl 4:1) and long for "comfort from the Scriptures (that) we might have hope",(Rom 15:4) for the "real life",(1 Tim 6:19), whether it be life everlasting life here on the earth in a Paradise,(Ps 37:11,29) or chosen as "holy ones" for a heavenly calling,(Heb 3:1) serving as "kings and priests".(Rev 1:6)

The apostle Paul wrote that "all the things written aforetime (by inspiration) were written for our instruction."(Rom 15:4) Thus, all the accounts of the Hebrew Scriptures (commonly called the Old Testament), whether of Genesis and its account of creation, along with the judges who served Israel some 356 years from 1473 B.C.E. to 1117 B.C.E, the lineage of kings from Saul down to Zechariah in 607 B.C.E., including David, with the "twelve minor prophets", these were written down by "inspiration" for "our instruction" by men faithful to God.

Later, God "breathed" on other faithful men his spirit to write down his thoughts, that is called the Christian Greek Scriptures, commonly called the New Testament, from Matthew who the first gospel account in about 41 C.E. to about 98 C.E. with the apostle John writing the final books of the Bible from or near Ephesus. The Bible was now complete.

 

[Orion]

Thanks for your input, Handy.

I think 2 Timothy 3:16 may have been an "over exageration" from a very inspired writer. I think HE may have fully believed it, but I'm not sure that even what he said is necessarily true. And when a person is inspired by his thoughts of God, they may say some very beautiful things. . . some very true things, . . .but may also be saying some very personal things. . . things from their mind that perhaps God didn't endorce. That's my problem. In the Psalms, I don't think we NEED any direction/influence/"breathed in words" from God. David's own words stand on their own. You know, WE are a wonderful creation from God and I don't think it is wrong to say that WE can learn from the mistakes and faults of others, and that when we read what David said, it was his own words coming out of his own experiences, outside of God, and we can gain a tremendous amount of insights from him, . . .and learn from HIS mistakes. Just because someone writes something deep, doesn't mean is HAS to come from a supernatural "breathing". God gave us the ability to reason, to learn, and to grow. And we have to take it upon ourselves to DO that, and to teach others. I see much of the Bible in that light, and that doesn't take away from whatever meanings we can gain from it.

nadab, God may HAVE personally inspired some of the words we find in our Canon, true. I'm sure it DID happen in many places.

 

[Veritas]

From whom is the words, written in the Psalms, coming from? Who was it that was writing down his thoughts when a pursuing Saul had intentions of killing? Why can't the words of David stand on their own without people saying that those words were just from God, and David "took the dictation down"? Why couldn't it have been David who was expressing his own thoughts? Why is that "less holy"?

I don't think there was a dictation being written down like that either. Rather, I think the process is much more organic and I agree fully with what handy has set forward:

I've always been taught, and understand it to mean that God breathed His truth into the words. This makes the Bible fully and completely reliable in it's message to us.

And so, I think David was expressing his own throughts through, and in, a special relationship with God. And God weaves His truths through Davids thoughts.

When David expressed the pain and sorrow of not feeling God in his struggle and emptiness, doesn't it take away from it to say that it was just God's words and David was writing them down? Was God sad that God wasn't there? Does that make sense?

I don't think David's pain and sorrow in his struggle with emptiness takes away from God's words, IF it is understood that there is a sharing between God and David. Take a moment and think about this. It seems absolutely preposterous at first when we ponder about God being sad when God wasn't there... How could that possibly be?

But that is exactly what happened. We sometimes think and feel we have been foresaken by God, but in actuality, no one ever is (at least not in this life). Jesus truely was forsaken. "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:45-46) And Jesus who is God, endured the full brunt of God's absence. It's mind boggling, yet it's true.

When David expresses praise to God for being David's rock and fortress, if it is only God praising himself, to me that seems empty. What good is it to praise yourself? Why couldn't these songs of praise be FROM David TO God and they have even MORE meaning to them than if they were "just the words coming from the mouth of God"?

Again, I believe this should all be considered in light of relationships. The relationship between David and God... And the relationship within the Godhead. Jesus actually does praise the Father. Matthew 11:25 is a simple example of that. When we understand that it is not just David expressing praise, nor just God expressing praise, but both are entwined, and we are involved too, the depth of our relationship becomes so much deeper with God and others.

 

[mondar]

One of the things that concerns me about Orion's original post is that it involves an untrue caricature. I have never seen the dictation theory ever taught in Chistian circles, not even in conservative christian circles. I guess this is anicdotal, and does not proove that dictation has never been taught, but I have never seen it taught. The accusation of conservatives teaching dictation is that those who take lower view of scriptural authority use in reference to those who take a high view of scriptural authority. Can anyone show me where conservatives are teaching dictation.

The normal conservative theory of inspiration does not usually mention the process of inspiation, it focuses on the results. The general terminology of conservatives is "verbal plenary inspiration." Frequently the older term "infallibility" is used, but the new term "innerrancy" has recently come into vogue. Not one of the terms above refers to the process of inspiration.

There have been several defining statements on innerrancy. I would recommend googling the term "biblical innerrancy." There is the "chicago statement on biblical innerrancy" that is often used as a kind of statement of faith on the authoity of the scriptures. Neither the term not the concept of dictation appears in the statement.

 

[Orion]

mondar, I said that because people will say that ALL that is in the Bible is directly from the mouth of God. The only way to take that statement is that these men had no say in what was being written, but "under some sort of trance" (I say that loosely), they put pen to paper as God spoke it to them.

For me, it means MUCH more for David to express his thoughts about God outside ANY OTHER influence. . . . . anything that "causes" or even "makes" him write it, . . .but only from his own spirit.

 

[handy]

Orion, I don't think Paul was exaggerating, and I do think that all of the Scriptures are inspired. It's just that we need to better understand what 'inspired' means, that's all. I agree with the others, it doesn't mean dictation.

I'm sure that David's outpourings in the Psalms were his heartfelt thoughts and emotions, even when they were inspiried by God to be forever part of His Holy Word. There are many things that God did probably 'dictate' such as the Law He gave Moses. But there are also just as many things that are the thoughts, ideas and emotions of those who wrote the words, and God still inspired them to write the things down in such a way that they became recognized as part of His message to us. The Gospels are clear examples of this. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John each wrote down their experiences and testimonies of what they witnessed regarding Jesus' time here on earth. I don't think they were 'taking dictation'. But, I do think the Spirit was at work, inspiring each to weave into their memories and testimonies exactly that which God wanted us to know. This is why, when we compare the Gospel, especially those of Matthew, Mark and Luke, we find a lot that corroborates with the others, as well as things that are only found within specific texts.

And, there are times when Paul did make a distinction between what what God's eternal message, and what was a principle that he, as a trustworthy person, felt should be followed, at least at that place and time. 1 Corinthians 7 is a good example of this. So, we do need to 'rightly divide' the word of truth. We need to understand what each text means both to the original readers of the text, and to everyone for all time. That there is a message for everyone for all time can be taken for granted, otherwise why would God have inspired the text? It's just a matter of correctly understanding what the message is.

 

[Orion]

Do you think that every single word and phrase falls into these catagories you mention?

I have a problem believing that. . . .I have a problem believing that God would "be angry enough to kill all the people who had built the Golden Calf, and Moses basically talking God out of destroying them all".

I have a problem with those who say that, even though God never changes, so His word and laws should never change, . . . that the "less palatable" laws in Leviticus were "the old covenant", when I rather tend to believe that they were actually taken from the Hamurabi Code and called "God's laws".

The Bible speaks of things which have no evidence of, . . .where there should be UNPRECEDENTED numbers of evidences to back up these claims.

The main thing, for me, is that I really have a hard time believing that EVERYTHING that these men wrote didn't have one bit of uninspired-ness to them, or that those who had a hand in it's compulation/translation/transcription/etc... didn't also have ulterior motives and used the church and the "threat of Hell for those who don't agree/follow" to propogate their own thoughts/desires.

I wonder if we place the Bible in the form of an "idol", having TOO MUCH faith in it and in those who wrote it, and especially those who decided what was holy enough to be in this Canon.

 

[mondar]

mondar, I said that because people will say that ALL that is in the Bible is directly from the mouth of God. The only way to take that statement is that these men had no say in what was being written, but "under some sort of trance" (I say that loosely), they put pen to paper as God spoke it to them.

Orion, interesting that you should use the term "mouth of God." The scriptures claims exactly that for the prophets of the bible. Moses wrote of this very thing. In Exodus 4:11-12 God promised to be with Moses "mouth."

Exo 4:11 And Jehovah said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? Or who maketh a man dumb, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, Jehovah?
Exo 4:12 Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt speak.

In Jeremiah 1:9 when God put forth his hand and touched Jeremiahs mouth, it had the same significance as with reference to Moses. God was with Jeremiahs mouth.

Jer 1:6 Then said I, Ah, Lord Jehovah! behold, I know not how to speak; for I am a child.
Jer 1:7 But Jehovah said unto me, Say not, I am a child; for to whomsoever I shall send thee thou shalt go, and whatsoever I shall command thee thou shalt speak.
Jer 1:8 Be not afraid because of them; for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith Jehovah.
Jer 1:9 Then Jehovah put forth his hand, and touched my mouth; and Jehovah said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth:

The words of Jeremiah were the words of God, God put his words in Jeremiahs mouth and Jeremiah became the mouth of God.

Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the apostle John also have these references to the mouth. John and Exzekiel eat a book, and Isaiah is touched by a coal from the altar upon his lip.

The whole issue is that these men were the mouth of God.

Of course when pen was put to parchment, we have a different aspect of inspiration. That is where the terminology of verbal plenary inspiration (every word, and the whole thing). Of course those terms apply only to the original manuscripts. I could talk only a little about the scribal copying process, but for now simply talking about the original manuscripts (autographs) is sufficient. The original manuscripts were just as someone else already said... theopneustos--God breathed. The term "God breathed" has a rich OT background in the concept of God being with the mouth of a prophet.

Orion, while you might find the majority of conservative or reformed Christians who believe the scriptures are inspired, I doubt you will find any conservative of reformed Christians that will agree with the dictation theory of revelation. I dont see that a writer sat down and got zapped, that is not the issue, and no one believes that. To suggest someone does would seem to me to be a straw man.

For me, it means MUCH more for David to express his thoughts about God outside ANY OTHER influence. . . . . anything that "causes" or even "makes" him write it, . . .but only from his own spirit.

Time to talk tongue in cheek.....
Why would you care what David, or Paul, or Moses said? Were not the writers of the scriptures liars who claims that miracles happened, and that the supernatural exists? Do you actually believe David existed? Where is David in the chronicles of the Assyrians (<---such a silly historical question). how can you prove that Abraham existed? Since Moses in not cooberated in Egyptian archaeology, then how can you care what Moses wrote?

I write this to point out that seeking a middle ground where we have respect for a totally human bible is meaningless. If the bible is of human origin, it is a grotesque record of fables.

THE BOTTOM LINE
While the bible is definitely the work of different men, that fact only makes the bible more amazingly divine. How can so many different men write prophecies, and today we look back on the truth of some of those prophecies. Let me give one example.

One of the truths of prophecy concerns the existence of the Jewish people. Do you think it an accident that the Jewish people are still in existence today? When a people is dispersed so widely, the are amalgamated among the other nations and absorbed into other populations. Why did this not happen to the Jews? Read these promises of God for the future of Israel. All the way back to Moses, Moses prophecied that the Children of Israel would inherit the land. But this will happen only after scattering. He will draw them back.

Deu 30:3 that then Jehovah thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the peoples, whither Jehovah thy God hath scattered thee.
Deu 30:4 If any of thine outcasts be in the uttermost parts of heaven, from thence will Jehovah thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee:
Deu 30:5 and Jehovah thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.

Jeremiah says the same thing....
Jer 29:14 And I will be found of you, saith Jehovah, and I will turn again your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places wither I have driven you, saith Jehovah; and I will bring you again unto the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.

Jer 23:8 but, As Jehovah liveth, who brought up and who led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all the countries whither I had driven them. And they shall dwell in their own land.

Ezekiel says.....
Eze 39:27 when I have brought them back from the peoples, and gathered them out of their enemies' lands, and am sanctified in them in the sight of many nations.
Eze 39:28 And they shall know that I am Jehovah their God, in that I caused them to go into captivity among the nations, and have gathered them unto their own land; and I will leave none of them any more there;

I could go on and on with passages the prophecy that the Jewish nation would endure in Captivity, and the God would bring them back to their land.

Could it be that you are looking for this lightening bolt, and God is speaking in a small voice and you do not notice. He powerfully spoke thousands of years ago that the Jewish people would endure. Why do you think it happened just as the bible said? I do not say it is dictation, but it is not myths, it is the mouth and the word of God. It is inspired, and the word of God. It is powerful.

 

[wavy]

I have a problem with those who say that, even though God never changes, so His word and laws should never change, . . . that the "less palatable" laws in Leviticus were "the old covenant", when I rather tend to believe that they were actually taken from the Hamurabi Code and called "God's laws".

we would expect that area of ancient world (ancient near east) to have many legal affinities, so while direct borrowing is possible, it is unlikely. however, this just proves to me that the israelite culture was just that: another culture. they took several of their own laws, perhaps modified them, then attributed them to a mythical story about moses receiving them from the god 'yhwh'...just as the code of hammurabi stele depicts a relief of this famous babylonian king receiving the law from the god 'shamash':

kind regards,

~eric

 

[wavy]

Were not the writers of the scriptures liars who claims that miracles happened, and that the supernatural exists? ......If the bible is of human origin, it is a grotesque record of fables.

in all respect, i think you're making bad generalizations. the authors of the bible wouldn't be 'liars' any more than other cultures with myth and legends incorporated into their literature. why such a black-and-white view of the bible?

While the bible is definitely the work of different men, that fact only makes the bible more amazingly divine.

not true at all. for one thing, we have to keep in mind that all the books of the bible originated from the same culture...hebraic culture, so in that regard similarities are to be expected between the books. furthermore, the bible wasn't written as 'the bible'. it is a compilation of independent documents that were chosen by men of that culture/religion to be placed into a 'canon', while other books were rejected. and this was a long process spanning many centuries, thousands of years even. there were many non-canonical books that derived from this hebraic culture and many books that derived from the major religion that was built upon that culture (christianity). so naturally, we would expect further similarities and correspondence between the books that were chosen. those who chose the canon aren't going to add books that contradict their beliefs. they're going to choose books they believe fits in with their views and disregard the books that don't.

there's nothing 'divine' about that. it's only reasonable, and even then, i believe the bible still contradicts itself. now if the books that comprise the bible were the only books written from among that culture, then that might be worth mentioning. or if the books that comprise the bible were written by men worlds apart in different cultures, then that might be worth mentioning. but that's not the case.

not very impressive.

How can so many different men write prophecies, and today we look back on the truth of some of those prophecies. Let me give one example.

the problem with this logic is that the 'prophecies' tend to be vague, and it's easy to look back on them and say 'this was what this prophecy was talking about'. again, that's not very impressive and is comparative to nostradamic believers.

One of the truths of prophecy concerns the existence of the Jewish people. Do you think it an accident that the Jewish people are still in existence today? When a people is dispersed so widely, the are amalgamated among the other nations and absorbed into other populations. Why did this not happen to the Jews? Read these promises of God for the future of Israel. All the way back to Moses, Moses prophecied that the Children of Israel would inherit the land. But this will happen only after scattering. He will draw them back.

Deu 30:3 that then Jehovah thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the peoples, whither Jehovah thy God hath scattered thee.
Deu 30:4 If any of thine outcasts be in the uttermost parts of heaven, from thence will Jehovah thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee:
Deu 30:5 and Jehovah thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.

Jeremiah says the same thing....
Jer 29:14 And I will be found of you, saith Jehovah, and I will turn again your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places wither I have driven you, saith Jehovah; and I will bring you again unto the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.

Jer 23:8 but, As Jehovah liveth, who brought up and who led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all the countries whither I had driven them. And they shall dwell in their own land.

Ezekiel says.....
Eze 39:27 when I have brought them back from the peoples, and gathered them out of their enemies' lands, and am sanctified in them in the sight of many nations.
Eze 39:28 And they shall know that I am Jehovah their God, in that I caused them to go into captivity among the nations, and have gathered them unto their own land; and I will leave none of them any more there;

I could go on and on with passages the prophecy that the Jewish nation would endure in Captivity, and the God would bring them back to their land.

Could it be that you are looking for this lightening bolt, and God is speaking in a small voice and you do not notice. He powerfully spoke thousands of years ago that the Jewish people would endure. Why do you think it happened just as the bible said? I do not say it is dictation, but it is not myths, it is the mouth and the word of God. It is inspired, and the word of God. It is powerful.

while all these 'prophecies' in their original context speak of the return of judahite tribes from captivity under babylonia and perhaps the other ephraimite tribes in the same return, they still fail miserably...not only from a secular perspective but from some christian perspectives as well (not all christians believe what happened in 1948 means anything, or that it's connected to 'prophecy'). firstly, deuteronomy wasn't written by moses anyway (easily demonstrable), and secondly, chs. xxviii-xxx contain post-exilic expansions (just as in ch. ix.1-40) written after the fact and are direct allusions to the end of jewish exile under cyrus. much of the same could be said of ezekiel and jeremiah.

lastly, all these 'prophecies' speak of israel dwelling safely, acknowledging god and doing his will...something christians can't admit, as they believe jews have rejected the 'messiah', i.e. are condemned. we can't even be sure that the jews there are actually 'jews', nor is their polity established according to their tribal distinctions, as in the pentateuch/hexateuch and as promised by the prophets (cf. isa xlix.6). no one knows who's from what alleged tribe, nor is their any way to determine that.

again, not very impressive.


kind regards,


~eric

 

[mondar]

Were not the writers of the scriptures liars who claims that miracles happened, and that the supernatural exists? ......If the bible is of human origin, it is a grotesque record of fables.

in all respect, i think you're making bad generalizations. the authors of the bible wouldn't be 'liars' any more than other cultures with myth and legends incorporated into their literature. why such a black-and-white view of the bible?

IF the bible is full of errors and myths, why should I bother with any of it? The Readers Digest and Guideposts would then be a better source of thought. If God is breathes error (theopneustos) into the scriptures, then he is no God at all. Concerning other cultures, I totally agree. The religious literature of the ancient Greeks and Romans is not authoritative with reference to understanding God at all. I see no reason to view the literature of that culture as authoritative at all. The same with the Koran.
Yes, I see no logic in a gray view of the bible. It is either all truth and therefore Gods truth, or it is a pile of rubbish. If it has error, why should I trust any of it?

While the bible is definitely the work of different men, that fact only makes the bible more amazingly divine.

not true at all. for one thing, we have to keep in mind that all the books of the bible originated from the same culture...hebraic culture, so in that regard similarities are to be expected between the books.

I think such statements show ignorance of the bible. The bible was written over a 1400 year period (conservative estimates). It went through two different Hebew alphabets (paleoHebrew and the Jewish script), and three different languages (Hebrew Aramaic and Koine Greek). The bronze age culture of Moses bore little similarity to the iron age culture of the Jews under Roman occupation. Their language was different, their technology was different, their life styles were different, their religious issues were different (the ancient Hebrews had issues of polygamy-the NT Jews had issues of legalism). Your statement above is not that much different from saying that modern people in the UK have changed little from the original Anglo's and Saxons that first invaded Briton.

furthermore, the bible wasn't written as 'the bible'. it is a compilation of independent documents that were chosen by men of that culture/religion to be placed into a 'canon', while other books were rejected. and this was a long process spanning many centuries, thousands of years even. there were many non-canonical books that derived from this hebraic culture and many books that derived from the major religion that was built upon that culture (christianity). so naturally, we would expect further similarities and correspondence between the books that were chosen. those who chose the canon aren't going to add books that contradict their beliefs. they're going to choose books they believe fits in with their views and disregard the books that don't.

Your theory of canonization has internal inconsistencies, and is not based upon an accurate understanding of history. I dont have time to go into detail right now. But the bible was written as the bible. It may not have been complete, but when Ezra wrote Chronicles and the book of Ezra, it was accepted immediately as scripture. No one ever had to declare it canonical. When Paul wrote his epistles, they were seen as authoritative immediately. They did not need some man out there in the future to declare it canonical.

there's nothing 'divine' about that.

Then there is nothing worthwhile about the bible either. It is nothing more then a false book about religious things that should not be read.

it's only reasonable, and even then, i believe the bible still contradicts itself. now if the books that comprise the bible were the only books written from among that culture, then that might be worth mentioning. or if the books that comprise the bible were written by men worlds apart in different cultures, then that might be worth mentioning. but that's not the case.

not very impressive.

So your not impressed? Maybe its because you know so little about the bible. To not see differences between a polytheistic or henotheistic bronze age culture with the Hebrew language, and a monotheistic iron age culture that speaks greek is a complete misreading of history.

How can so many different men write prophecies, and today we look back on the truth of some of those prophecies. Let me give one example.

the problem with this logic is that the 'prophecies' tend to be vague, and it's easy to look back on them and say 'this was what this prophecy was talking about'. again, that's not very impressive and is comparative to nostradamic believers.

This comment displays a complete lack of knowledge concerning the content of biblical prophecy. The Jewish people suffered a complete dispersion across the face of the earth. And yet they retain their national identity. Three is amazing differences between nostradamus and the bible. I have yet to see a fan of nostradamus tell me what future event is going to happen. On the other hand, the bible predicts that the Messiah will return. It tells me the exact spot he will return (the mount of olives) and the prophetic time setting of the time (Day of the Lord) but not the exact time. Filfilled prophecy is extremely exact. Isaiah predicted the fall of the kingdoms around him to the assyrian empire. He challenged the king of Israel not to depend upon that "broken reed" egypt. Isaiah later gave us the exact name of a Babylonian emperor (Cyrus).

I would suggest you study biblical predictive prophecy more before making such absurd comments. Do you know the difference between the prophetic genre and the apocalyptic genre of literature? Certainly some prophecies use the apocalyptic genre, but certainly not all. The bible has such variety of prophetic literary genre's that it is amazing. Nostradamus drones on with one literary style, a poetic/apocalyptic literary genre.

Orion, such comments about comparing Nostradamus and the prophecies of the bible only display ignorance of the bible.

One of the truths of prophecy concerns the existence of the Jewish people. Do you think it an accident that the Jewish people are still in existence today? When a people is dispersed so widely, the are amalgamated among the other nations and absorbed into other populations. Why did this not happen to the Jews? Read these promises of God for the future of Israel. All the way back to Moses, Moses prophecied that the Children of Israel would inherit the land. But this will happen only after scattering. He will draw them back.

Deu 30:3 that then Jehovah thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the peoples, whither Jehovah thy God hath scattered thee.
Deu 30:4 If any of thine outcasts be in the uttermost parts of heaven, from thence will Jehovah thy God gather thee, and from thence will he fetch thee:
Deu 30:5 and Jehovah thy God will bring thee into the land which thy fathers possessed, and thou shalt possess it; and he will do thee good, and multiply thee above thy fathers.

Jeremiah says the same thing....
Jer 29:14 And I will be found of you, saith Jehovah, and I will turn again your captivity, and I will gather you from all the nations, and from all the places wither I have driven you, saith Jehovah; and I will bring you again unto the place whence I caused you to be carried away captive.

Jer 23:8 but, As Jehovah liveth, who brought up and who led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all the countries whither I had driven them. And they shall dwell in their own land.

Ezekiel says.....
Eze 39:27 when I have brought them back from the peoples, and gathered them out of their enemies' lands, and am sanctified in them in the sight of many nations.
Eze 39:28 And they shall know that I am Jehovah their God, in that I caused them to go into captivity among the nations, and have gathered them unto their own land; and I will leave none of them any more there;

I could go on and on with passages the prophecy that the Jewish nation would endure in Captivity, and the God would bring them back to their land.

Could it be that you are looking for this lightening bolt, and God is speaking in a small voice and you do not notice. He powerfully spoke thousands of years ago that the Jewish people would endure. Why do you think it happened just as the bible said? I do not say it is dictation, but it is not myths, it is the mouth and the word of God. It is inspired, and the word of God. It is powerful.

while all these 'prophecies' in their original context speak of the return of judahite tribes from captivity under babylonia and perhaps the other ephraimite tribes in the same return, they still fail miserably

Again you display such ignorance of the bible. When Moses wrote his prophecies in Deuteronomy there was no divided kingdom. Do you realize that during the return of Israel to the land, there will be no tribe of ephraim? Look in the list of tribes in Revelation 7. The tribe of Joseph appears and there is no tribe of ephraim.

Nevertheless, the nation returns in prophecy. While there are reasons to say that the current nation if Israel is not the exact form of the final nation (it will be religious not secular), the fact is that the Jewish people are still in existence today.

Look how different biblical prophecy is from nostradamus. I say that Israel will remain in existance until the end of time. When Israel is destroyed, then I will agree that you were right. But Israel is divine. Israel is the subject of biblical prophecy. God's mighty hand is preserving that nation because he said in his word that there is a plan for that nation. They will remain in existence until the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

...not only from a secular perspective but from some christian perspectives as well (not all christians believe what happened in 1948 means anything, or that it's connected to 'prophecy').

Yes, I am fairly reformed, but not in escahtology. I would be willing to debate eschatology with my Calvinist brothers in Christ, but not now and here. The scriptures does teach premillenialism.

firstly, deuteronomy wasn't written by moses anyway (easily demonstrable),

Deuteronomy is an amazing unity of thought (easily demonstratable).

and secondly, chs. xxviii-xxx contain post-exilic expansions (just as in ch. ix.1-40) written after the fact and are direct allusions to the end of jewish exile under cyrus. much of the same could be said of ezekiel and jeremiah.

lastly, all these 'prophecies' speak of israel dwelling safely, acknowledging god and doing his will...something christians can't admit, as they believe jews have rejected the 'messiah', i.e. are condemned.

That is a misunderstanding of Christian doctrine. Have you ever bothered to read Romans 9-11? One quote and I have to go....

Rom 11:1 I say then, Did God cast off his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
Rom 11:2 God did not cast off his people which he foreknew. Or know ye not what the scripture saith of Elijah? how he pleadeth with God against Israel:

If you knew the scriptures, you would not say the things you say. Your above statements cannot be reconciled with Romans 11:1-2

Time for work.... later.

we can't even be sure that the jews there are actually 'jews', nor is their polity established according to their tribal distinctions, as in the pentateuch/hexateuch and as promised by the prophets (cf. isa xlix.6). no one knows who's from what alleged tribe, nor is their any way to determine that.

again, not very impressive.


kind regards,


~eric

 

[handy]

Ah, I see. The problem isn't that anyone is misunderstanding what 'inspired' means. The problem is that some want to reject the parts of the Scriptures they don't agree with, therefore one MUST reject the idea that the Scriptures are inspired. After all, if the Bible is truly inspired by God, then we must listen to the message. As long as the Bible remains a collection of writings of different humans, then there is no reason why anyone needs to feel bound by the message contained within.

OK. That choice is yours.

I agree with Mondar though, if I truly found any real, confirmed error in the Scriptures, I would reject the whole of it. There might be some nice exciting stories to regale the kids with, but I certainly wouldn't use any of it to base my faith on.

However, I've found that after 28 years of critical, extensive study, I've yet to find any true errors in the Scriptures. Well, there's the little 'typos' like whether or not Josiah was 8 or 18 when he became king, but nothing that substantially changes the message.

If anyone want to provide absolute proof that the Bible is indeed filled with errors, or even has one substantial error, an error that changes the message of the Bible, an error that proves beyond anyone's personal interpretation that Jesus isn't the Messiah, or that hell does indeed exist, or that God didn't say to Moses that He would indeed kill the Israelites, then bring it on. However, don't go over the tired old stuff that's been shown time after time after time not to be true Scritpural error, but rather just an error of interpretation.

But, to be fair, I'm not all that interested in opinions based upon the idea that one interprets the Bible with one's own image of what God should be firmly fixed in place, and therefore one rejects any parts of the scripture that doesn't line up with the preconcieved notions.

 

[Orion]

I would tend to agree more with wavy. And his words aren't the first time I've seen similar thoughts on the "prophecies". Not to say that some weren't real, perhaps. However, isn't this a form of divination, to give foresight,. . . . . ?

 

[mondar]

I would tend to agree more with wavy. And his words aren't the first time I've seen similar thoughts on the "prophecies". Not to say that some weren't real, perhaps. However, isn't this a form of divination, to give foresight,. . . . . ?

That biblical prophecy is not divination is a statement of the obvious. How that applies to the conversation, I do not understand. One major difference I would observe is that in divination the diviner does certain rituals to obtain information unknown about the present or information about the future. These rituals are intended to pacify or manipulate spirits or forces for human advantage. In biblical prophecy the prophet controls very little. Not that the prophet has no will, but rather that the prophet is not sovereign in any way. I think of the book of Jonah. Jonah received the word of God and chose to flee from Ninevah. Jonah made choices, but God did not seem to care or respect Jonah's choices. In divination, the diviner controls the forces or spirits. In biblical prophecy, the prophet is not at all sovereign, but God is sovereign, and makes his message known throught his mouth piece.

Prophets did not do rituals to get the word of God, but God chose the prophet, then chose the message, and sometimes, as in the case of Jonah, God made the message happen against the prophets will. I see no such interaction between diviners and their forces or spirits. The difference between diviners and prophets is a great testimony to the sovereign greatness of my God.

 

[wavy]

IF the bible is full of errors and myths, why should I bother with any of it?

to many it is an intriguing piece of literature. the fact we live in a christian culture which attempts to impose its worldview on everyone also gives one cause to study it.

Yes, I see no logic in a gray view of the bible. It is either all truth and therefore Gods truth, or it is a pile of rubbish. If it has error, why should I trust any of it?

there are historical truths in it, and as i said, it is an intriguing piece of literature. i don't have a 'grey' view of it.

I think such statements show ignorance of the bible. The bible was written over a 1400 year period (conservative estimates). It went through two different Hebew alphabets (paleoHebrew and the Jewish script), and three different languages (Hebrew Aramaic and Koine Greek). The bronze age culture of Moses bore little similarity to the iron age culture of the Jews under Roman occupation. Their language was different, their technology was different, their life styles were different, their religious issues were different (the ancient Hebrews had issues of polygamy-the NT Jews had issues of legalism). Your statement above is not that much different from saying that modern people in the UK have changed little from the original Anglo's and Saxons that first invaded Briton.

you should have read the rest of what i said before you commented. anyway, we're talking about religious tradition passed down for centuries (i made no statements about political or social situations, which obviously change over centuries). and i never said that religious tradition was consistent. i just said similarities are to be expected, even though i believe there are contradictions, great and small. your analogy is false because it did not take into account everything i said (which you really didn't address/controvert) and instead opted to make a straw man out of my words. i believe hebrew religion evolved over the centuries just like any other. i also disagree with your 'conservative estimates'. and i'm confused by this statement: 'the ancient Hebrews had issues of polygamy-the NT Jews had issues of legalism'. i have no idea what you're basing this off of. it seems random and irrelevant to the issue on the table. anyway, you would do well to know your opponent's position before you erroneously erect straw men and charge 'ignorance'...a charge which seems to have back-fired.

you've made no point here.

Your theory of canonization has internal inconsistencies, and is not based upon an accurate understanding of history. I dont have time to go into detail right now. But the bible was written as the bible. It may not have been complete, but when Ezra wrote Chronicles and the book of Ezra, it was accepted immediately as scripture. No one ever had to declare it canonical. When Paul wrote his epistles, they were seen as authoritative immediately. They did not need some man out there in the future to declare it canonical.

umm...no. the bible was not written as the bible (66/72 books). in order for that to happen the books would have had to be written together with one purpose in one volume in a relatively short span of time. and you rail about 'ignorance' and an inaccurate 'understanding of history'...

firstly, your examples of ezra and paul are unrepresentative and prove no point whatsoever. secondly, we don't know that ezra wrote chronicles (i have no problem with ezra writing ezra although some radical critics might disagree). thirdly, i'd like to see your evidence to whether or not ezra and chronicles were 'accepted immediately as "scripture"' and explain what you mean by that. and even if this suggestion were true, what does that prove? it certainly does nothing in the way of proving that the bible was inspired or that it was 'written as the bible' (i've never heard anyone claim that before) since when ezra/chronicles were written many of books of the bible did not exist!

fourthly, paul's epistles were not immediately accepted as authoritative. that took a little while, and the letters had to be first gathered (primarily), copied, published, and then weighed by the men of the early church.

lastly, the bible is a canon of accepted sacred writings. men definitely had to bring all the writings that comprise it together first and then declare it to be canonical and/or inspired for the bible to be the bible. it cannot have been written as the bible before it actually became the bible. that's just about the silliest thing i have ever heard, and i have no idea what you're talking about. you're not making any points relevant to anything i said, and the points you are making carry little cohesiveness or reason. there were many books accepted by the hebrews as authoritative which are not found in your bible. the same with christian literature. you're trying to make it seem as if everyone definitively knew what was inspired and what was not. that's about as 'ignorant' as it gets, since you want to talk about 'ignorance'.

Then there is nothing worthwhile about the bible either. It is nothing more then a false book about religious things that should not be read.

you have a very narrow view of reality. not my cup of tea. i doubt i'll continue dialoguing with you if you continue in this order...

So your not impressed? Maybe its because you know so little about the bible. To not see differences between a polytheistic or henotheistic bronze age culture with the Hebrew language, and a monotheistic iron age culture that speaks greek is a complete misreading of history.

1) you're rambling about your own straw man. i never said anything about the language remaining the same, and in fact, i believe the ancient hebraic culture was polytheistic/henotheistic in pre-exilic times and monotheistic in post-exilic times, and this is reflected in pre-/post-exilic biblical literature. that's one aspect of hebrew religion that evolved. again, know what you're talking about before you respond.

2) you entirely missed the point of what i said (or ignored it). my point was that all literature that comprises the bible is based on the idealogies and primitive beliefs of one culture/religion, which i do believe evolved (things like language and technology being absolutely irrelevant to anything i said), so we are to expect similarities. the writings of the bible are not going to be completely disparate. further, with the formation of the canon, we're going to expect even closer similarities since men are going to choose those writings which agree with their beliefs. that's a point you have not addressed and it stands as a factor of common sense.

3) you seem to now be contradicting the very point you're trying to make. you're arguing for the bible's complete consistency and therefore inspiration (it seems)...but then you turn around and point out differences that contradict similarity points! did you forget what you were arguing? and some of your differences i never denied and some of them i absolutely agree with. so what is your point? you continue to make no sense.

This comment displays a complete lack of knowledge concerning the content of biblical prophecy.

it appears i'm 'ignorant' about many things in this dialogue, which you can't even point out due to straw men and the inconsistency of your argumentation....

The Jewish people suffered a complete dispersion across the face of the earth. And yet they retain their national identity.

perhaps superficially, yes. but i'd like to see the old tribal distinctions (don't forget those 'lost ten tribes') and proof that the 'jews' are who they say they are.

again, your point?

Three is amazing differences between nostradamus and the bible. I have yet to see a fan of nostradamus tell me what future event is going to happen. On the other hand, the bible predicts that the Messiah will return. It tells me the exact spot he will return (the mount of olives) and the prophetic time setting of the time (Day of the Lord) but not the exact time.

so...the validity of 'prophecy' is to be determined by what has not happened yet? you continue to make no sense...

Filfilled prophecy is extremely exact. Isaiah predicted the fall of the kingdoms around him to the assyrian empire. He challenged the king of Israel not to depend upon that "broken reed" egypt. Isaiah later gave us the exact name of a Babylonian emperor (Cyrus).

i'm sure you're familiar with the divisions of the book of isaiah into the historical isaiah (chs. i-xxxix {1-39}), deutero-isaiah (xl-lv, {40-55}) and trito-isaiah (lvi-lxvi {56-66})...the latter two being post-exilic compositions (making the 'prophecies' invalid or debatable). even modern conservatives, like f.f. bruce, at least admit the existence of deutero-isaiah (which would be xl-lxvi). the point of much of ot prophecy is not to predict events far into the future, but to give hope in a time of contemporary trouble.

and cyrus, btw, wasn't a 'babylonian' emperor. he was a persian emperor who conquered the babylonian empire.

I would suggest you study biblical predictive prophecy more before making such absurd comments. Do you know the difference between the prophetic genre and the apocalyptic genre of literature? Certainly some prophecies use the apocalyptic genre, but certainly not all. The bible has such variety of prophetic literary genre's that it is amazing. Nostradamus drones on with one literary style, a poetic/apocalyptic literary genre.

i would suggest you study contemporary works on some of the biblical prophets and the nature of 'prophetic' literature. i'm not sure what apocalyptic literature has to do with my points. you would do well not to go off on tangents that are in the habit of not actually addressing the points being made.

Again you display such ignorance of the bible. When Moses wrote his prophecies in Deuteronomy there was no divided kingdom. Do you realize that during the return of Israel to the land, there will be no tribe of ephraim? Look in the list of tribes in Revelation 7. The tribe of Joseph appears and there is no tribe of ephraim.

had you read what i said, you would have seen the comment i made that i do not believe moses wrote deuteronomy, and that the 'prophecies' about a return of israel to the land are post-exilic insertions and expansions (i specifically mentioned ch. i.1-40 and chs. xxviii-xxx) that relate to the end of the exile (not today). and again, you appear to be appealing to the future to justify genuine 'prophecy' in the bible...which can only be vindicated after the events have transpired...

claiming 'they will happen' is irrelevant to the point i'm contending and irrelevant to the point you're trying to prove. and you bring up another aspect of biblical contradiction: who actually comprises the twelve tribes of israel? that is to say, which tribes are the tribes of israel? (and where are they?)

Yes, I am fairly reformed, but not in escahtology. I would be willing to debate eschatology with my Calvinist brothers in Christ, but not now and here. The scriptures does teach premillenialism.

all power to you...but that's irrelevant to anything i said...

That is a misunderstanding of Christian doctrine. Have you ever bothered to read Romans 9-11? One quote and I have to go.... <snipped>...Time for work.... later.

...again...appealing to what you believe is a future event doesn't help prove biblical prophecy....

i'm sorry, but all of my original points stand until you actually address the issue.


~eric

 

[wavy]

Ah, I see. The problem isn't that anyone is misunderstanding what 'inspired' means. The problem is that some want to reject the parts of the Scriptures they don't agree with, therefore one MUST reject the idea that the Scriptures are inspired. After all, if the Bible is truly inspired by God, then we must listen to the message. As long as the Bible remains a collection of writings of different humans, then there is no reason why anyone needs to feel bound by the message contained within.

i hope you're not referring to me because i do not hold the bible authoritative in any way...not the whole, not certain parts.

Well, there's the little 'typos' like whether or not Josiah was 8 or 18 when he became king, but nothing that substantially changes the message.

If anyone want to provide absolute proof that the Bible is indeed filled with errors, or even has one substantial error, an error that changes the message of the Bible, an error that proves beyond anyone's personal interpretation that Jesus isn't the Messiah, or that hell does indeed exist, or that God didn't say to Moses that He would indeed kill the Israelites, then bring it on. However, don't go over the tired old stuff that's been shown time after time after time not to be true Scritpural error, but rather just an error of interpretation.

But, to be fair, I'm not all that interested in opinions based upon the idea that one interprets the Bible with one's own image of what God should be firmly fixed in place, and therefore one rejects any parts of the scripture that doesn't line up with the preconcieved notions.

well, there are far greater problems in the bible than transcriptional errors (many errors in the bible claimed to be transcriptional by christians actually have no textual evidence), but anyway, the stuff you mention here to be disproven or debated is totally subjective and non-falsifiable.

how do you argue against what some one else considers to be the 'message' of the bible? how far do you take that and how do you measure it? what does that constitute? it seems modern christians just modify their beliefs to fit modern situations and cling to some idea of an essential 'message' (again, subjective and non-falsifiable/verifiable). e.g., a literal interpretation of genesis contradicts science? alright, so despite the fact that jews and christians have interpreted it literally for centuries before the advent of the age of enlightenment, just claim that it wasn't meant to be taken literally. it's 'allegory', 'figurative', or some similar and it's the 'message' that's important. there's no way one can argue against these types of 'accomodations' for one's faith.

and how would one argue things like the existence of hell, or the god of the bible saying anything to moses?

your challenge is futile and meaningless. it'd be just as if i asked you to debate me on whether or not i'm a talking red pig who's invaded the internet to discuss theology and hack as many computers as possible, and that i'm using mind control to keep everyone from discovering it. you can't 'argue' that. now if we establish some falsifiable/verifiable parameters, then we could talk. but until then, we'll get nowhere.


~eric

 

[Relic]

i hope you're not referring to me because i do not hold the bible authoritative in any way...not the whole, not certain parts.

Unbelievers. :-? Do they expect us to buy into their way of thinking of unbelief?
They don't believe the authority of the Truth that is the Word of God. What do they beleive as being a foundation from which to live by? If God HOLY SPIRIT doesn't provide the foundations, principles and precepts from which HIS creation is set up to live by, then who or what does? Chaos? :crazyeyes: :

I don't believe a thing these unbelievers have to say. They have NO foundation from which to base their beliefs :

 

[handy]

your challenge is futile and meaningless. it'd be just as if i asked you to debate me on whether or not i'm a talking red pig who's invaded the internet to discuss theology and hack as many computers as possible, and that i'm using mind control to keep everyone from discovering it. you can't 'argue' that. now if we establish some falsifiable/verifiable parameters, then we could talk. but until then, we'll get nowhere.

I agree with you on this Eric, I truly do. Which is why I've often wondered at the motivation of those who come to a forum which has as point #2 of it's statement of faith that, "The bible is the inspired, infallible, and only authoritative Word of God" and challenge the authority of the Bible.

Please, please don't misunderstand me, I know you have a perfect right to come here and to express your views, it's just that I truly don't understand what motivates folks like you and Orion to challenge the clearly stated beliefs here at the forum. I agree, that if there could be some falsifiable/verifiable parameters, we could indeed talk, but there really aren't any are there? For, if there truly were any 'proof-positives' out there that would confirm or deny the Bibles veracity once and for all, then the whole thing would already have been settled. But there aren't. You and I both know that. Which is why I'm stumped as to why you would come to a Christian site that expressely holds the view that the Bible is indeed inspired, infallible, and only authoritative Word of God, and argue the point.

(And I'll probably regret expressing these thoughts in this post, which I'm typing as fast as my fingers will allow as I'm supposed to be picking the kids up from school, and am admittedly not fully considering from all angles. Oh well, if I'm offending either you or Orion in anyway, just let me know and I'll be sure to apologize! Again, it's not that I don't want you around, I'm just baffled at your motivation.)