God-Inspired Scripture

[Redemptionsong]

What are the grounds for believing any, or yours in particular?

I can't claim personal rights over God's word! But what I can say is that the prophecy as a whole (The Bible) took about 1500 years to write. That alone should make you wonder at the immensity of the spirit that lies behind this 'book'. Persons wishing to create a deception can sometimes achieve their deception within their own lifetime (such as the Qur'an, I believe) but to do so over a period of 1500 years is just not humanly possible.

 

[Walter Russell]

It's evident, from various threads on this site, that there are people who believe that the Bible can be pulled apart without damaging the overall integrity and structure of the whole. They think, for example, that Paul's writings are not authoritative whilst other books in the New Testament are God-breathed. Or they believe that all the books of the New Testament are without divine inspiration, yet accept the writings of the Old Testament (Tanach) as from God.
I would like to suggest that God has given the Bible a perfect weave - an internal structure that cannot be broken.
I would also like to suggest that much misunderstanding, particularly with regard to the Pauline epistles, is the result of failure to appreciate the dispensational nature of God's dealings with mankind.

I'll add, I do fully understand dispensationalism. Dividing the Bible according to who God was speaking to.

Example- Adam and Eve were vegetarians, Noah was told to eat the animals, Moses told the ppl they could only eat certain animals, Jesus said it wasn't what went in a mans mouth that defiled him.
Reading the Bible in this manner doesn't change or negate my charges against it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What do you disagree with?

1. What "we call the Bible" depends very much on what is meant by "we." It certainly does not include me.
2. "Though a list was clearly necessary to fulfill Constantine's commission in 331 of fifty copies of the Bible for the Church at Constantinople, no concrete evidence exists to indicate that it was considered to be a formal canon. In the absence of a canonical list, the resolution of questions would normally have been directed through the see of Constantinople, in consultation with Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (who was given the commission), and perhaps other bishops who were available locally.
   
   In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would formally become the New Testament canon,[6] and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regard to them. The first council that accepted the present Catholic canon (the Canon of Trent) may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils took place under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed." - Wiki

 

[metis]

I can't claim personal rights over God's word! But what I can say is that the prophecy as a whole (The Bible) took about 1500 years to write. That alone should make you wonder at the immensity of the spirit that lies behind this 'book'. Persons wishing to create a deception can sometimes achieve their deception within their own lifetime (such as the Qur'an, I believe) but to do so over a period of 1500 years is just not humanly possible.

Most of the written religions make such claims, so why would you believe yours and not theirs?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Does this same logic also apply to the Lord of the Rings?
Harry Potter?
Incantations of Immortality?
Sword of Truth?
Xanth?
Shannara?

if not, why not?

Hopefully post 21 answers this objection.

 

[metis]

1. What "we call the Bible" depends very much on what is meant by "we." It certainly does not include me.
2. "Though a list was clearly necessary to fulfill Constantine's commission in 331 of fifty copies of the Bible for the Church at Constantinople, no concrete evidence exists to indicate that it was considered to be a formal canon. In the absence of a canonical list, the resolution of questions would normally have been directed through the see of Constantinople, in consultation with Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea (who was given the commission), and perhaps other bishops who were available locally.
   
   In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would formally become the New Testament canon,[6] and he used the word "canonized" (kanonizomena) in regard to them. The first council that accepted the present Catholic canon (the Canon of Trent) may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393); the acts of this council, however, are lost. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. These councils took place under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed." - Wiki

But wait a minute! Are you saying that the Bible didn't come floating down from heaven right into someone's open arms. Oh, how could you?!

You're such an apostate!

 

[Redemptionsong]

Most of the written religions make such claims, so why would you believe yours and not theirs?

I don't believe that other holy books make the claims that the Bible makes. The Bible is quite unique in its plan, its prophecy, and, above all, in the power of its WORD.

 

[David1967]

I don't believe that other holy books make the claims that the Bible makes. The Bible is quite unique in its plan, its prophecy, and above all in the power of its WORD. I believe the whole Bible is a 'hallelujah' to Father and Son, provided by the Holy Spirit.

I don't mean this disrespectfully, but how many other holy books have you read?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I can't claim personal rights over God's word! But what I can say is that the prophecy as a whole (The Bible) took about 1500 years to write. That alone should make you wonder at the immensity of the spirit that lies behind this 'book'. Persons wishing to create a deception can sometimes achieve their deception within their own lifetime (such as the Qur'an, I believe) but to do so over a period of 1500 years is just not humanly possible.

Based on that logic, I guess that means that the Hindu "scriptures," which took a similar long period to complete, must also be true.

The Quran also claims, and is claimed, to be perfect and the word of Allah. On what basis are you so certain that it's a deception?

 

[blue taylor]

What we call the "Bible" was a conglamerant of writings decided upon by a group of men, under the direction of Constantine, as being the "word of god", from which the books were "nominated" by mere popularity of each of the writings in its day, and was "canonized" by a show of hands where dissenting voters were executed or banished. Wish such a colorful history and under such shady circumstances, it's illogical to assume that these writings comprises the "word of god", if there were even such a thing as either god or a "book" that he wrote.

Absolutely. People praise their Bible but have no idea of it's convoluted history.

 

[Sapiens]

If the Bible does not contain the Truth, and is not of universal application, then it's to be treated like any other book. Take the bits you like and discard the rest.

What should be apparent from history alone,however, is that this book has changed lives. And if the message is to be believed, the world itself was created through, and is governed by, the living Word.

There are many books that have "changed lives." That's no biggie.

You are breaking the very warnings against alteration of the book that you quote from your book, The "word" that you refer to is a weak translation. of the Greek: Λόγος. It might be "word", but as easily could be "discourse" or "reason."

Anyway, Bart Ehrman (the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) posits:

1. At least 11 of the 27 New Testament books are forgeries.
2. The New Testament books attributed to Jesus’ disciples could not have been written by them because they were illiterate.
3. Many of the New Testament’s forgeries were manufactured by early Christian leaders trying to settle theological feuds.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's evident, from various threads on this site, that there are people who believe that the Bible can be pulled apart without damaging the overall integrity and structure of the whole. They think, for example, that Paul's writings are not authoritative whilst other books in the New Testament are God-breathed. Or they believe that all the books of the New Testament are without divine inspiration, yet accept the writings of the Old Testament (Tanach) as from God.
I would like to suggest that God has given the Bible a perfect weave - an internal structure that cannot be broken.
I would also like to suggest that much misunderstanding, particularly with regard to the Pauline epistles, is the result of failure to appreciate the dispensational nature of God's dealings with mankind.

Please take your time. Read my full post. Overview the points; but, if it becomes a debate, I will cut it short. Its not meant to be rude, but I come to RF to understand these repeative debates not prove someone is wrong.

My point: The Bible does not have a monopoly of universal truth; and, it does not define spirituality as defined by the nature of life not the interpretations and opinions of inspired people. We can live without the Bible ever existing.

1. Word of God is true: It only claims itself to be true. Nichiren Shonin's letters to his disciples in the Gosho are true. He predicted and it came about the wars that happened over religion in his land and in our day, the conflict over religious authority to the point of another person's death. The Lotus Sutra is the summary of all The Buddha's writings (Mahayana). He too predicted correctly that his teachings will be forgotten and that Buddhas (enlightened people) after him will come to expound the Law (nature of life within the sutras). He was right.

Same as the evangelicals in Acts of the New Testament. I don't think Judaism has evangelism in their religion. Muslims do. The word of god is not unique.

That's like if I murdered someone and said "I am not guilty" and there is evidence that I am not guilty so the jury should "take my word for it" instead of investigating the proof on their own. Many juries found the claimed innocent guilty. By US Law, the guilty cant make him self innocent (just like the Bible cant claim itself to be authentic). The "jurors" who wrote the Bible have passed away. Who are the jurors to authenticate your claim? They (or it) has to be something we all know not just Christians.​

My Point: There is nothing to judge to base your claim on. If there is, it cannot be the Bible.

Question: Where do you base your claim on (the authority of the Bible as being the word the god not its claim)?

2.Prophecies, as I said above, many religious prophecies have been made and came true. That isnt unique. Its just their prophecies where so general that any religion can claim that the world will go amok in two thousand years, and by their observation (not inspiration), their claim came true.

The Bible isn't universally unique. It is just on the "Best Books" list. Popularity and how it changes people life doesn't make the Bible historically and factually accurate. The truth (not fact) is in the person who uses its knowledge to better his well being and wisdom. It is not for someone to try to prove its true when the Bible, Quran, et cetera are personal books to which (like poetry, like a novel), can be taken as spiritually beneficial or just another book.

Question: There is nothing wrong with the Bible not being historically and factually accurate in many ways than one. Why should it need to be when God exists before the book was even written?

3. Miracles: They happen, yes. The source is from the eye of the beholder. Since every other religion (excluding some) have miracles, the Bible has no monopoly on their miracles as being real while others are false (or from satan, I guess)

Question: Why would any christian exclude miracles from other religions as being the positive and accurate event from the source of that religion? What makes it not a miracle when it is not written in scripture?

My point: Many use miracles to prove the authenticity of the Bible. I am not a Christian; and I have experienced many miracles. God doesn't hold a monopoly on giving blessings.

I find all the Bible authenticity arguments very nonproductive. No Christian I have met in person and online has ever gave me any evidence of the Bible's authenticity outside of his or her personal interpretations (say, you see a tree, it comes from God I see the same tree, its growth is from the Spirits) Whose interpretation is right?

You need a common denominator. Until that happens, how in the world can you say the Bible is true (fact) when it is based on faith (a belief) that can only be understood as true to the person who reads it.

Please take your time. Read my full post. Overview the points; but, if it becomes a debate, I will cut it short. Its not meant to be rude, but I come to RF to understand these repetitive debates not prove someone is wrong.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Could you expand on this "dispensational nature" too?

I believe that the Jewish sages were right when they saw in Genesis 1 a form of prologue to the whole of human history. Each day in the Genesis account is interpreted as a period of a thousand years ( as indicated in Psalms) with the first two thousand years being a period of void (no Torah); the second two thousand years is seen as the flourishing of the Torah; then there was an expectation of the next two thousand years as being the Messianic era. Finally, there was the sabbath, or millennium of rest.
The dispensational nature of scripture is the result of the different covenants that occur. There are a number of such covenants, but the one that causes the most controversy is the covenant with Moses. In Hebrews it says, 'For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:'
For many people, the story of Jesus ends with the resurrection, and with the Gospels, but scripture tells us that Jesus 'mediates'. The new testament or new covenant does not take effect until after the death and resurrection of the testator. In other words, what Jesus says in the Gospels is sometimes directed at Israel and not at the Church or Body of Christ. The body of Christ or Church does not appear until after Pentecost! The new relationship with the Church is different to the relationship God has had with Israel and with Judah.

 

[blue taylor]

There are many books that have "changed lives." That's no biggie.

You are breaking the very warnings against alteration of the book that you quote from your book, The "word" that you refer to is a weak translation. of the Greek: Λόγος. It might be "word", but as easily could be "discourse" or "reason."

Anyway, Bart Ehrman (the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) posits:

1. At least 11 of the 27 New Testament books are forgeries.
2. The New Testament books attributed to Jesus’ disciples could not have been written by them because they were illiterate.
3. Many of the New Testament’s forgeries were manufactured by early Christian leaders trying to settle theological feuds.

Codex Sinaiticus contains the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd Of Hermas. Why would God put them in and take them out later? Did God make a mistake? The first New Testament contained only the Gospel Of The Lord and 10 epistles of Paul. No old testament. Did God make a mistake here too?

 

[Redemptionsong]

I will try to respond to more tomorrow but I live in Britain and it's late!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(The Bible) took about 1500 years to write. That alone should make you wonder at the immensity of the spirit that lies behind this 'book'.

This is getting more and more laughable.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Each day in the Genesis account is interpreted as a period of a thousand years ( as indicated in Psalms) ...

Sillier and sillier.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I truly wish that folks would use the search engine to discover how much of this drivel has been endlessly repeated in the forums.

 

[Nietzsche]

It's evident, from various threads on this site, that there are people who believe that the Bible can be pulled apart without damaging the overall integrity and structure of the whole. They think, for example, that Paul's writings are not authoritative whilst other books in the New Testament are God-breathed. Or they believe that all the books of the New Testament are without divine inspiration, yet accept the writings of the Old Testament (Tanach) as from God.
I would like to suggest that God has given the Bible a perfect weave - an internal structure that cannot be broken.
I would also like to suggest that much misunderstanding, particularly with regard to the Pauline epistles, is the result of failure to appreciate the dispensational nature of God's dealings with mankind.

Including the bits that contradict the other bits?

 

[paarsurrey]

It's evident, from various threads on this site, that there are people who believe that the Bible can be pulled apart without damaging the overall integrity and structure of the whole. They think, for example, that Paul's writings are not authoritative whilst other books in the New Testament are God-breathed. Or they believe that all the books of the New Testament are without divine inspiration, yet accept the writings of the Old Testament (Tanach) as from God.
I would like to suggest that God has given the Bible a perfect weave - an internal structure that cannot be broken.
I would also like to suggest that much misunderstanding, particularly with regard to the Pauline epistles, is the result of failure to appreciate the dispensational nature of God's dealings with mankind.

There is no question of any inspiration in connection with NT or Gospels, it is definitely not inspired from G-d, Jesus never mentioned it. Did he?
Regards