How is the Bible the Word of God?

[1robin]

That is just our current understanding, which has changed quite a bit and surely will in the future.

It has not changed that much and this view has been around for a very long time, maybe some other stupid ideas were also around but the have all fallen by the way side and we are left with this simplistic truth which has no known exception, nor do I expect it will change in the future. I think you can find everything I said in surviving Greek texts or work on them.

Is there anything I can type that is so absolute that you will not contend with it? Very little of what we have discussed is doubtful yet you adopt a contrary view to anything I say.

 

[sojourner]

The Bible contains credible statements that are consistent with scientific discoveries.

The Scripture predicted that the earth is round before science confirmed it. “He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in” (Isaiah 40:22). The book of Isaiah was written about 2500 years ago.

More can be read from this book:

Understanding Prayer, Faith and God's will (Understanding Prayer, Faith and God's Will

This kind of "circle" represents more a disc than a sphere, if it's covered with a canopy. In fact, that's consistent with Genesis, where the sky is a solid dome covering a disc of earth.

 

[sojourner]

The Bible is supposed to be consistant in theme from beginning to
end.

No it's not.

When corrected things do go together.

Not necessarily.

 

[sojourner]

I know it is fact because I have faith.

Faith is not a test for fact. What you have is faith-based truth, not fact-based knowledge.

 

[1robin]

Why does it matter if someone else has used an argument before?

I did not say it mattered, I said I see it has occurred again. I have debated this person for months and they are among my favorites, I joke with them a lot and this quasi-joke has a personal history in our debates. I was merely poking fun at it.

Is an argument less valid if it is new?

They seem to be these days but they are not necessarily such. I did not say it was new. It in fact is not. I asked if anyone in a professional setting uses it because I wanted to read up on why they think a strong response because I don't see it as such.

Is an argument more valid if it is popular?

I didn't mention popularity. I don't know what it is exactly, but your reading into the things I say stuff they don't.

I cannot get my mind around the answer to any of these being yes.

I cannot get my mind around why your asking me the last three questions. The first question is incorrect but I can see why you made the mistake because you don't know about my prior debates with them but the others I don't know where you got them.

 

[leibowde84]

I did not say it mattered, I said I see it has occurred again. I have debated this person for months and they are among my favorites, I joke with them a lot and this quasi-joke has a personal history in our debates. I was merely poking fun at it.

They seem to be these days but they are not necessarily such. I did not say it was new. It in fact is not. I asked if anyone in a professional setting uses it because I wanted to read up on why they think a strong response because I don't see it as such.


I didn't mention popularity. I don't know what it is exactly, but your reading into the things I say stuff they don't.


I cannot get my mind around why your asking me the last three questions. The first question is incorrect but I can see why you made the mistake because you don't know about my prior debates with them but the others I don't know where you got them.

The others were all based off the first, which was asked in error per your explanation. Sorry bout dat.

 

[J0stories]

Hummmm????? The Bible is supposed to be consistant in theme from beginning to
end. The book spans about 6,000 years of mans history.
If it is indeed consistant from beginning to end then I'd suspect some devine
assitance. The writers of the various documents in the Bible are alleged to be
inspired by God. The writer being only the vessel thru whome God works.
I've found inconsistancies in my reading if the Bible, various translations, and if I do a little digging I find passages mistranslated. When corrected things do go together.
I'm no expert, only one trying to understand.
I am one that does not believe that Jesus was God in the flesh.
That is very controversial and up the the believer to sort it out.
English common law is based mostly in the Bible as is most laws in this country.
I feel the Bible is the "owners manual" for dealing with humans. There is nothing that is not
beneficial contained in the Bible.

Seriously? There is much that has led to millions of deaths and so much hatred it's disgusting. Beneficial is not a word that comes to mind with the words The bible.

 

[J0stories]

It is the ancient manuscripts which decide and support Bible canon.
The apocryphal books simply exclude themselves by being out of harmony with the ' 66 ' books of Bible canon. The '66' have corresponding or parallel reference verses and passages showing the internal harmony among its many writers.

Although Jesus did Not write, or put the Torah together [ nor the Christian Scriptures ] Jesus often prefaced his statements with the words "it is written" meaning words already written down in the old Hebrew Scriptures thus basing his beliefs and teachings on the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus even quoted or referred to the Hebrew passages as the final authority on matters to Satan at Luke chapter 4.

The Tanahk and/or the Talmud have nothing to do with Christianity and if you ask any Jewish person, they will tell you the Jesus, if he did even exist, does not pass the genealogy to be the messiah. Furthermore, there is one book allegedly wittiness by Jesus, as well as one by Mary magdalene, among others. My favorite is Thomas. Lift a rock and you will find me, split a piece of wood and I am there.

 

[roger1440]

Okay. I think I put this in the right forum. It has to do with religion.

Anyway, I was thinking. When I think of the "Word of God" I think of Jesus' message to His believers and those He said His Father sent Him to save. His message--the words--are the Bible. Since Jesus is said to be God, it is God's words as well.

However, when I think of God I do not think of His message written in a book. God (or so have you) speaks to us through our heart, minds, and souls. The Bible (and any other Abrahamic scripture: Quran and so forth) is more the message written through the hearts of the people who believed in Him. It is "their words; their testimonies" not God's.

Of course, there is opposition with this statement. I do not think of God as a person, so Him having a full conversation written or spoken with me and anyone else in our native tongue is foreign to me.

"God" has no language. He has no tongue. He is the spirit or mystic law imprinted in our hearts that motivates us to fulfill our calling and purpose in life. We are born through the Spirit, live by it, and die by it to live the next stage of life in a continuous cycle.

Who can ever limit "God" by language alone.

Actually, the message of the canonical gospels is the very same thing you said. The message of God is not revealed in a book, Its revealed by God. That is the true meaning of the New Covenant. The Church is not founded on what was revealed to Peter. The Church is founded on HOW it was revealed to Peter.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You need to post that on a Christian billboard somewhere. Thank you.

Actually, the message of the canonical gospels is the very same thing you said. The message of God is not revealed in a book, Its revealed by God. That is the true meaning of the New Covenant. The Church is not founded on what was revealed to Peter. The Church is founded on HOW it was revealed to Peter.

 

[viole]

Oh I see the argument from we cannot be certain so we know nothing what so ever argument is still in style. I actually can do much more than that. I can select a category in nature and then actually find that it does have a causal explanation outside it's category. Now your saying that that principle despite never having an exception to it known in the history of man cannot justify reasonable belief that it even occurs when I cannot verify it. Let me ask you this, in all the hundreds of hours of debate I have seen the books I have read, even transcripts I have reviewed (yes I am that obsessed) I do not recall a non-this using this type of defense before. The question is has any major figure used this argument in a formal defense as you have here? Can you link me to it? Drawing conclusions from what can be seen and if reason allows extrapolating to what cannot be seen is science.

I think we have been here before. You will not in this case allow what has no exception to comment on events that cannot be see. That is technically valid but I consider a weak response. If we did this in science we would still be in the stone age. Science assumes lawfulness and rationality.

It depends on what the question is. Any ultimate answer would justify the line of reasoning, temporal questions like how did this coffee get made, or why is my tire flat would not. I would say the question what caused the chain of events is far more reasonable that what causes "cause and effect" to be true. Many things are simply brute facts any the explanation is not needed to grant them their ontological nature. Of course curiosity would want both answers but I think you have the hierarchy backwards of what is more important.

The last part of the question threw me off. I don't understand why you clarified the question by adding when al objects can be seen. Makes me doubt I understand the question.

I disagree, I do not have to know or be able to explain how every genetic or biological process in a bear works to know they exist, I get burned by the sun whether I can describe the process or not, I don't even know how 1% of my own processes work yet I know I am. I can dig up some boring philosophical dissertation what is meant by a cause but I think it would only add a mountain of semantic technicalities to something we both agree exists. This does not really apply to you but there is a famous saying that to give truth to one who loves it not only increases opportunity for contention. I will give a definition if you really want but since causes come in every conceivable type it will be a very long definition.

[/QUOTE]

Well, my question asks wether you can rationally extend your concept of causality to the whole Universe when all the things you can experience, and pply induction to, are contained in it and do not correspond to it. The composition fallacy, again.

Things like time, an arrow of time, spacial and relational contexts between things. Temporal ones. Etc. Are all things that are not immediately extensible to the universe as a whole. I doubt you can give a notion of causality without them.

The Universe is not immersed in time and space. It is time and space. It provides the context on which your induction can operate, and it is unwarranted to extend this induction to it, as well. This obvious fact alone should make it clear that it is very different from the things it contains and that, therefore, any extension of causality to the context thereof is rationally unjustified.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

The others were all based off the first, which was asked in error per your explanation. Sorry bout dat.

Very well.

 

[Nakosis]

People have experiences, dreams, visions and believe they are in communication with God. While they maybe sincere in this belief, doesn't mean they are actually speaking for God.

If they get enough people to accept their claim they'll consider this person a prophet. People will record what they say and claim it to be God's Word. No real reason to believe any of this except maybe it is telling people what they want to hear or think they should be hearing from whatever their concept of God is.

People can justify their belief that any particular prophet is speaking for God by whatever reasoning they think supports their case. The reality is the person had a dream, vision, whatever seemed a spiritual experience to them. Doesn't mean any of it had anything to do with God.

Doesn't stop people from believing what they want to.

Obviously many people sincerely feel they are in some kind of communication with God. Mix in a little charisma and passion, they can probably find enough followers to start their own religion.

 

[1robin]

Well, my question asks wether you can rationally extend your concept of causality to the whole Universe when all the things you can experience, and pply induction to, are contained in it and do not correspond to it. The composition fallacy, again. [/quote] We are not dealing with absolutes here. Fallacies usually depend on someone making a claim to fact. I am not (at least ultimately). We have three choices. A. We can see that cause and effect are true without except in all observations, we can see no dependence on the natural associated with it (it appears to be like math, etc.... to simply be furniture in but not of the universe), we can also examine supernatural theory given in theological texts and also see cause and effect in operation there though it may differ somewhat from what we know it to be. or B. we can for some reasons suspend practices that have grounded science for centuries like extrapolating from the known to the unknown, and can do so in spite of having no compelling reason to do so. or C. We can declare that anything les than certain has no value, turn out the light, and give up.

I believe A to be perfectly reasonable though less than certain. B is the next best but far behind A. and C. is just silly.

Things like time, an arrow of time, spacial and relational contexts between things. Temporal ones. Etc. Are all things that are not immediately extensible to the universe as a whole. I doubt you can give a notion of causality without them.

Well let me pick one. We deal with space which a relation between two concepts. They can be separated into their two respective components. I cannot see space having an application the supernatural as it has no physical needs or demands, but time I can easily imagine. It would not be space time, it would time related to some other concept. It probably would not be recognized by us but I have no reason to think it would not exist. However I don't see any of these things as necessary. I saw an argument from a naturalist that separated mind from brain, he had a very good way of doing so. The relevant point here was that he said minds are related to brains as we know them but appear to not be dependent on them. The same with every factor you noted. Causations does seem to interact in the universe with those elements but I see no reason to think it bound by them nor dependent on them. It is like if we only saw ships at sea, we could only say that they appear to only interact with water and to sit on it's surface but unlike the natural we can peer beyond what we may have only seen of ships at sea and conclude that they can exist completely independent of water and extend far below the water line. In other words appearances can be and seem to be in the case of causation deceiving.

The Universe is not immersed in time and space. It is time and space. It provides the context on which your induction can operate, and it is unwarranted to extend this induction to it, as well. This obvious fact alone should make it clear that it is very different from the things it contains and that, therefore, any extension of causality to the context thereof is rationally unjustified.

I can weave a thread through a cloth and if that is all you saw it would appear the thread is bound by and dependent on the cloth but that would be false. I see no reason the thread could not exist independently of the cloth, no reason the ship cannot exist without the sea, and no reason to think causation could not exist beyond the context I find it in.

All these arguments are the same. They are very formally dressed version of it you lack certainty you can not be informed at all. I disagree with the type of argument but much worse is that science does not obey that formula, why must faith? Faith's only burden is the lack of a defeater, I raise that bar to best explanation in most cases but I do not actually have that burden.[/quote][/quote]

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The Tanahk and/or the Talmud have nothing to do with Christianity and if you ask any Jewish person, they will tell you the Jesus, if he did even exist, does not pass the genealogy to be the messiah. Furthermore, there is one book allegedly wittiness by Jesus, as well as one by Mary magdalene, among others. My favorite is Thomas. Lift a rock and you will find me, split a piece of wood and I am there.

According to what the Bible really teaches, Jesus based his beliefs and teachings on the old Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus often referred to those Hebrew text.
Why would I expect an enemy of Christ to say the Talmud or Hebrew Scriptures have anything to do with Christ ?

According to history: the Jewish genealogical temple records were destroyed by the Roman armies in the year 70. So, to what genealogical record are you referring ?

 

[J0stories]

According to what the Bible really teaches, Jesus based his beliefs and teachings on the old Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus often referred to those Hebrew text.
Why would I expect an enemy of Christ to say the Talmud or Hebrew Scriptures have anything to do with Christ ?

According to history: the Jewish genealogical temple records were destroyed by the Roman armies in the year 70. So, to what genealogical record are you referring ?

The messiah must, must Jewish definition, be of the house of David. Since Christ came from Mary, if one chooses to believe that, there is no lineage there. And enemy of Christ? My goodness....how do you presume to know that? Presumptive, non?

 

[Nada]

The messiah must, must Jewish definition, be of the house of David. Since Christ came from Mary, if one chooses to believe that, there is no lineage there. And enemy of Christ? My goodness....how do you presume to know that? Presumptive, non?

There is lineage with Mary.Both Mary and Joseph.

This is the genealogy of Jesus through Mary.
Luke 3:23 So Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years old. He was the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel, the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel, the son of Kenan, 38 the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God.

Heli is the father of Mary.Joseph was Heli's son by marriage.Joeseph is Heli's son-n-law.That is why it says, "Joseph, the son of Heli."
In Luke we have the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph.Since Joseph was not Jesus' biological father, it list Jesus' father as God.



In Matthew 1 we have the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph.

1 This is the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah the son of David, the son of Abraham:............
15 Matthan the father of Jacob,

16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

17 Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.


Here we clearly see where it says Jacob is the father of Joseph. Heli is not the father of Joseph,Jacob is. Joseph is the son of Heli by way of marriage as mentioned in Luke.

So both Joseph and Mary are of the house of David.

 

[Nada]

The messiah must, must Jewish definition, be of the house of David. Since Christ came from Mary, if one chooses to believe that, there is no lineage there. And enemy of Christ? My goodness....how do you presume to know that? Presumptive, non?

Here is more on the genealogy of Jesus,explaining about Heli and Mary.

"Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary. Regarding the genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and by Luke, Frederic Louis Godet wrote: “This study of the text in detail leads us in this way to admit—1. That the genealogical register of Luke is that of Heli, the grandfather of Jesus; 2. That, this affiliation of Jesus by Heli being expressly opposed to His affiliation by Joseph, the document which he has preserved for us can be nothing else in his view than the genealogy of Jesus through Mary. But why does not Luke name Mary, and why pass immediately from Jesus to His grandfather? Ancient sentiment did not comport with the mention of the mother as the genealogical link. Among the Greeks a man was the son of his father, not of his mother; and among the Jews the adage was: ‘Genusmatrisnonvocaturgenus [“The descendant of the mother is not called (her) descendant”]’ (‘Baba bathra,’ 110, a).”—CommentaryonLuke, 1981, p. 129."




Actually each genealogy (Matthew’s table and Luke’s) shows descent from David, through Solomon and through Nathan. (Mt 1:6; Lu 3:31) In examining the lists of Matthew and Luke, we find that after diverging at Solomon and Nathan, they come together again in two persons, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel. This can be explained in the following way: Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah; perhaps by marriage to the daughter of Neri he became Neri’s son-in-law, thus being called the “son of Neri.” It is possible as well that Neri had no sons, so that Shealtiel was counted as his “son” for that reason also. Zerubbabel, who was likely the actual son of Pedaiah, was legally reckoned as the son of Shealtiel, as stated earlier.—Compare Mt 1:12; Lu 3:27; 1Ch 3:17-19.

Then the accounts indicate that Zerubbabel had two sons, Rhesa and Abiud, the lines diverging again at this point. (These could have been, not actual sons, but descendants, or one, at least, could have been a son-in-law. Compare 1Ch 3:19.) (Lu 3:27; Mt 1:13) Both Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies of Jesus vary here from that found in 1 Chronicles chapter 3. This may be because a number of names were purposely left out by Matthew and possibly also by Luke. But the fact should be kept in mind that such differences in the genealogical lists of Matthew and Luke are very likely those already present in the genealogical registers then in use and fully accepted by the Jews and were not changes made by Matthew and Luke.

We may conclude, therefore, that the two lists of Matthew and Luke fuse together the two truths, namely, (1) that Jesus was actually the Son of God and the natural heir to the Kingdom by miraculous birth through the virgin girl Mary, of David’s line, and (2) that Jesus was also the legal heir in the male line of descent from David and Solomon through his adoptive father Joseph. (Lu 1:32, 35; Ro 1:1-4) If there was any accusation made by hostile Jews that Jesus’ birth was illegitimate, the fact that Joseph, aware of the circumstances, married Mary and gave her the protection of his good name and royal lineage refutes such slander."


Genealogy of Jesus Christ — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The messiah must, must Jewish definition, be of the house of David. Since Christ came from Mary, if one chooses to believe that, there is no lineage there. And enemy of Christ? My goodness....how do you presume to know that? Presumptive, non?

Please notice that Matthew chapter one traces Jesus' Paternal line through Joseph.
Whereas Luke chapter three traces Jesus' Maternal line through Mary.

Mary gives Jesus the blood line, Joseph gives Jesus the legal right to David's throne.

 

[J0stories]

Please notice that Matthew chapter one traces Jesus' Paternal line through Joseph.
Whereas Luke chapter three traces Jesus' Maternal line through Mary.

Mary gives Jesus the blood line, Joseph gives Jesus the legal right to David's throne.

Neither Matthew nor Luke have any part of the Jewish tradition. Nor can joseph have a part as he did not father Christ. In Jewish lore, the line has to come from paternal lines. I am merely stating what I have learned.