Good-Ole-Rebel
*banned*
To the scientific world, yes it is. To the Christian it is the reasoning of our faith.
Good-Ole-Rebel
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God's language in Genesis?
- Thread starter Eddi
- Start date
To the scientific world, yes it is. To the Christian it is the reasoning of our faith.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Good-Ole-Rebel
*banned*
You go ahead and believe your 'facts'. I will believe the Bible and God.
Good-Ole-Rebel
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
That's a cop-out and a lousy way to represent the Faith. C'mon! You can do better than this.
Good-Ole-Rebel
*banned*
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Because you're admitting that faith utilizes less-strenuous standards. Science uses strict standards of reasoning; faith does not. Circular reasoning is necessary for the scientific world, but circular reasoning is OK for faith issues??? How in the world is circular reasoning ever acceptable to a reasonable argument -- unless, of course, you're admitting that your beliefs aren't reasonable? You're "copping a lesser plea" for the standards of belief. And I just think that's a disrespectful way to treat the Faith.
Look, these are facts: We don't know who authored the biblical texts, because we have no extant evidence of authorship (other than some of the letters attributed to Paul), because none of the earliest examples we have are signed or attributed to someone. But we can be reasonably certain that some human beings did author the texts. We know this because many of the OT texts are thought to come from earlier Sumerian, Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian texts. And we're reasonably certain that these were all passed down orally for centuries before being written down. The OT texts have been dated no earlier than 600 BCE. These are the facts we know. These are the facts with which we must deal with the biblical texts, if we're to treat them with integrity for what the are -- not for what we imagine or believe them to be.
That being said, we can take these facts and once the facts are stated, we can make belief statements about them. For example: I, myself, believe that the texts come from human hands through inspiration of the HS. I can't prove that, but I believe it. along with the rest of the community of faith; it's our Tradition. And that belief and Tradition puts the stamp of authority on those texts for me. However, there's a caveat to this: "inspiration for the writing" =/= "infallible." I don't believe for one second that the texts are infallible, because human beings -- even operating under inspiration -- are imperfect and cannot escape the influence of their own knowledge, beliefs and biases. Further, there are a myriad translational problems, and a whole host of exegetical issues for which allowances must be made. When taking all these under consideration, we cannot say, "The bible unequivocally says..." with too much certainty, because there too many unknowns. Plus, the texts, themselves are multivalent. What we can say is: "We believe the texts say..." and then give reasonable exegetical arguments.
You're simply saying, "God said it, I believe it; that settles it." And that's ultimately unfair to the rich content of the texts. it's a cop-out.
dybmh
ויהי מבדיל בין מים למים
If you don't mind me saying so: I really respect the answer you gave to my question. I think it shows integrity.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Well, the traditional belief is that God spoke Hebrew, as Hebrew is the Holy Tongue.I know all this...
I was interested in what the traditional beliefs are about such things
MNoBody
Well-Known Member
last I read, the biblical definition of faith is a conviction in the soundness of things that are invisible,
which logically cannot be proven to another, as it is dealing with things invisible, [subjectively perceived]
so how does one establish a visible [objective] proof???
anyone??
surely someone????
which logically cannot be proven to another, as it is dealing with things invisible, [subjectively perceived]
so how does one establish a visible [objective] proof???
anyone??
surely someone????
Good-Ole-Rebel
*banned*
Good-Ole-Rebel
*banned*
Actually, 'faith' is a much higher standard. You can't produce it by your method. You can't produce enough 'facts' to convince one to be moved by 'faith'. You can't produce enough 'facts' to destroy those who have faith.
And, guess what? If you convinced someone by your 'facts' and your 'reason' to become a Christian, they did not come as they did not come by faith. And someone will come along who is smarter than you, able to present more 'facts' and 'reason' than you, and tell the person what you say is all bull. And he can prove it. Thus the person ceases to believe because he never had faith in the first place.
I have showed you Who Authored the Bible. God. Of course there were human writers. But the human writers are not the Author. God is. When Moses was used by God to write the Pentateuch, God raised up a situation that Moses must address. Moses was just writing, under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, specifically to address his situation. (Joshua) did the same. The writer of the book of (Judges) did the same. They were writing only to their situation before them. But...the Holy Spirit was writing a Book...The Bible. Moses wrote a chapter. Joshua wrote a chapter. Ezra, Nehemiah, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Matthew, John, Paul, Peter, etc. etc. were just writing their chapter. But the Holy Spirit was writing a Book.
The Bible is a supernatural work from God. It is the only written Word of God on earth. The 'bible' you describe as a 'rich content' of texts has no appeal to me whatsoever. The Bible I describe is the description it gives of itself.
Thus, by your own words, you have neither faith or the Word of God.
Good-Ole-Rebel
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Not when you throw reason out the window. We have scripture, we have tradition, and we have reason. If you throw one out, the tripod of faith collapses. Additionally, faith doesn't interpret ancient texts written in dead languages. If you're presented with a text in ancient Hebrew, no amount of faith will allow you to read that text. Faith doesn't do the work of either interpretation or translation.
We're not talking about "bringing someone to Jesus. We're talking about working responsibly with these ancient texts.
No. what you showed me were a lot of disparate texts that you have not responsibly interpreted. None of them -- none -- explicitly said, "God wrote this."
The bible is a very human work from inspired human beings. If both arguments were admitted in court, which one do you think would win? And before you come off with "Faith isn't subject to the law," consider that, in order to responsibly deal with something, we have to know what it is first. We can't just make stuff up -- that's what the early Apostles were fighting against: folks that just made stuff up. There is a continuity of Tradition that encompasses interpretation, theology, and doctrine. You're not showing any of that here. You're providing a cop-out.
It's a quaint though baseless tradition.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I agree.
Good-Ole-Rebel
*banned*
Yes, but you don't have the Word of God. So much for your tripod of unbelief. Translation of ancient texts doesn't produce faith. Don't you think the Pharisees knew the Hebrew? Of course they did. Yet the majority of them simply used it to find cause against Jesus. They missed it.
Faith applies to both. Faith in Christ, and faith in the Bible as the Word of God. (Heb. 4:2) "For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it."
(John 6:29) Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." (John 7:17) " If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."
Yes, I already showed you the Bible's claim to be the Word of God. Here again, that is all I can do. I cannot create faith in a person.
Man was involved in the writing of the Bible, as I have repeatedly said. But God is the Author of the Bible. It is through His inspiration, a miraculous move upon man, that created the Bible. As to being in court, it all depends on which court. Of course the court of man will take your side. But there is a greater court.
Good-Ole-Rebel
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
I mentioned scripture. In fact, I mentioned scripture first.
It’s not supposed to. But how else can we have “the word of God” without it, removed, as we are, in time and culture, from the stories of Tradition that link us to it?
Soo... you’re saying that we don’t need the Bible to help form the basis of our faith?
That’s not what I asked. I asked you to show where the Bible specifically and explicitly says that “God is the author.” They’re not the same thing.
“Authorship” means that someone lifted a pen or tapped a keyboard and created actual words that comprise a message. There is no record of God doing that task.
This suggests a word-by-word dictation process. The texts, themselves, suggest otherwise, since there is much evidence of editing, later additions, and translational problems.
Not one that will show the Bible for what it is.
Last edited:
Muffled
Jesus in me
1. I believe He used His own language
2a. I believe He was speaking to the emptiness 2b. I believe He spoke to evoke the images of which He spoke and to bring them into existence
3. I believe the gods would have taught them Celtic.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe Jewish scholars must have been guessing and self affirming at the same time.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe that has to be self affirming also.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
I subscribe to a theory of revelation and theology described by Conservative Jew, Benjamin D. Sommer (Professor of Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages, The Jewish Theological Seminary, New York). In Sommer's book, Revelation and Authority (2015), he proposes using
- "the terms “participatory theory of revelation” and “participatory theology” to speak of approaches to revelation that view the Pentateuch (and Jewish tradition generally) as the result of a dialogue between God and Israel. According to the participatory theology, the Pentateuch not only conveys God’s will but also reflects Israel’s interpretation of and response to that will. This view of revelation puts a premium on human agency and gives witness to the grandeur of a God who accomplishes a providential task through the free will of human subjects under God’s authority. We may contrast participatory theologies with a better-known view of revelation, which [Sommer terms] “the stenographic theory of revelation.” According to the latter theory, God dictated all the words of the Pentateuch to Moses, and Moses recorded God’s words without altering them. In the stenographic theory, all the words of the Pentateuch are God’s. In the participatory theory, the wording in the Pentateuch is a joint effort involving heavenly and earthly contributions; or the wording may be an entirely human response to God’s real but nonverbal revelation. Especially in the second chapter of this book, I argue that the Pentateuch itself gives voice to both stenographic and participatory theologies of revelation." (Page 2)