Is the Bible God's word?

[francisdesales]

Can you prove that those authors existed? If you can, what evidence do you have that they actually wrote the books?

Can you prove Alexander the Great lived and was not a figment of Macedonian imagination 200 years after the fact???

No, not to the "Alexander" skeptic.

This is one example of many from history where we take things on faith.

History is full of such things... We take them on faith that writers are reporting what they see, unless we have other evidence to the contrary. Do you have any such evidence of contemporary historians refuting the existence of Jesus or the writers of Scriptures?

I agree with your contention that most of what has been said about the Scriptures being from God, "proven by being written by many people on different continents, etc." is spurious and proves nothing. But to deny their existence altogether is based upon philosophical conjecture rather than historical evidence...

Historically, they are valid and important writings that correctly detail historical issues, verified by other historical accounts. It seems there is no intent to kid anyone by the authors of these writings...

Regards

 

[Physicist]

apples and oranges

Can you prove that those authors existed? If you can, what evidence do you have that they actually wrote the books?

Can you prove Alexander the Great lived and was not a figment of Macedonian imagination 200 years after the fact???

No, not to the "Alexander" skeptic.

This is one example of many from history where we take things on faith.

History is full of such things... We take them on faith that writers are reporting what they see, unless we have other evidence to the contrary. Do you have any such evidence of contemporary historians refuting the existence of Jesus or the writers of Scriptures?

I agree with your contention that most of what has been said about the Scriptures being from God, "proven by being written by many people on different continents, etc." is spurious and proves nothing. But to deny their existence altogether is based upon philosophical conjecture rather than historical evidence...

Historically, they are valid and important writings that correctly detail historical issues, verified by other historical accounts. It seems there is no intent to kid anyone by the authors of these writings...

Regards

You are comparing apples and oranges here. Historians have every good reason to believe that there was an Alexander the Great. We have writings of his contemporaries, archeological finds of cities he destroyed and cities he built, coins minted while he ruled, and a host of other items that are best explained by assuming that he was real.

The authorship of most of the NT writings are either anonymous or pseudo-graphical. The exceptions would be genuine letters of Paul. Similar conditions apply to the OT. The book of Daniel was written much later than it implies and obviously Moses did not write the Pentateuch since he would have written his own funeral oration. However, this does not mean that these works are without use in historical reconstruction of ancient events because they certainly are useful.

 

[DarcyLu]

Re: apples and oranges

You are comparing apples and oranges here. Historians have every good reason to believe that there was an Alexander the Great. We have writings of his contemporaries, archeological finds of cities he destroyed and cities he built, coins minted while he ruled, and a host of other items that are best explained by assuming that he was real.

The authorship of most of the NT writings are either anonymous or pseudo-graphical. The exceptions would be genuine letters of Paul. Similar conditions apply to the OT. The book of Daniel was written much later than it implies and obviously Moses did not write the Pentateuch since he would have written his own funeral oration. However, this does not mean that these works are without use in historical reconstruction of ancient events because they certainly are useful.

hi Physicist, how do you know Daniel was written much later than implied, where is your resource?
most people believe Joshua actually wrote the oration and although there is discussion among Christians regarding this, it would only make sense Joshua wrote this part.
Historians have VERY good reason to know there was a Jesus also, no one can deny He existed and He walked the earth. God chooses the "less" and not the "wise" of the world and if we know more about Alexandar the Great than we do about Paul, it really does not prove anything. Our belief is based upon faith and we should not have to prove what we believe as our belief is based on faith.

 

[elijah23]

I look at the Bible as a revelation. There is amazing wisdom in the Bible, wisdom that guides us through our lives.

 

[Physicist]

Re: apples and oranges

hi Physicist, how do you know Daniel was written much later than implied, where is your resource?

W. Sibley Towner writes: "Daniel is one of the few OT books that can be given a fairly firm date. In the form in which we have it (perhaps without the additions of 12:11, 12), the book must have been given its final form some time in the years 167-164 B.C. This dating is based upon two assumptions: first, that the authors lived at the later end of the historical surveys that characterize Daniel 7-12; and second, that prophecy is accurate only when it is given after the fact, whereas predictions about the future tend to run astray. Based upon these assumptions, the references to the desecration of the Temple and the 'abomination that makes desolate' in 8:9-12; 9:27; and 11:31 must refer to events known to the author. The best candidates for the historical referents of these events are the desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the erection in it of a pagan altar in the autumn of 167 B.C. by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The inaccurate description of the end of Antiochus' reign and his death in 11:40-45, on the other hand, suggests that the author did not know of those events, which occurred late in 164 or early in 163 B.C. The roots of the hagiographa (idealizing stories) about Daniel and his friends in chaps. 1-6 may date to an earlier time, but the entire work was given its final shape in 164 B.C." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 696)

most people believe Joshua actually wrote the oration and although there is discussion among Christians regarding this, it would only make sense Joshua wrote this part.

Now it is my turn to ask for your source for this conclusion. It seems to me to be one of those arbitrary assumptions that Apologists make to avoid an obvious Biblical difficulty.

Historians have VERY good reason to know there was a Jesus also, no one can deny He existed and He walked the earth.

Most historians, but not all, do think think there was a historical Jesus. WHere they disagree is in what he actually said and did

God chooses the "less" and not the "wise" of the world and if we know more about Alexandar the Great than we do about Paul, it really does not prove anything. Our belief is based upon faith and we should not have to prove what we believe as our belief is based on faith.

I agree