Theists: Atheism is a Religion?

[MJFlores]

I was recently told Atheism is a religion with tenets, and dogma. So I have a ? for those theists who think atheism is a religion.

1. For the theists who believe in a single god, I assume you're an atheist towards other gods. For example, let's say you don't believe in, you have an atheist view towards, Ahura Mazda, Zeus and Krishna. So if you're a theist who believes atheism is a religion; when you "practice" your atheism towards those gods you don't believe in, who gives you your dogma, tenets, doctrines, creeds etc? I haven't found any for atheism so I'm willing to be educated on this matter when you tell me where yours come from. Thanks!

2. I was curious so I looked up some surveys about atheist beliefs. Re: atheists: Conservapedia said 32% believe in an afterlife, 6% believe in resurrection, they also found atheists who believe in ghosts, souls, pseudoscience, UFOs. Pews Forum reports 9% don't believe in evolution. 32% rely on science to determine right from wrong while 44% rely on past experience and common sense. And a large number of Dutch atheists believe in a "universal force". So...with all these beliefs all over the map, who is giving atheists their doctrines, tenets & dogma and why are they giving them a religious structure that's so varied & inconsistent?

If you strongly believe there is no God, then you have faith in that belief. For me a true atheist is someone who doesn't care if there is a God or not - like the animals, insects and fish - which are concerned only on their daily survival.

On the other hand, those who believe in god or gods which people call theists are harboring their own respective beliefs, believing theirs is right but at the end of all things, their beliefs are useless and share no advantage over the atheists.

I think, people have gone in different ways instead of God's way. Strangely enough, some people are atheists because they are disillusioned over their former religion that they stopped searching and they think that looking for an invisible God is just a waste of time. So in this strong belief that there is no God, they have formulated a series of "tenets or dogma" like the Big Bang, Evolution and so forth and so on.

Atheists are entitled to their beliefs as the theists are entitled to theirs. But for me, I will stick to my bible:

1 Corinthians 8:6 New International Version (NIV)

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Even when others believe in UFOs, Ahura Mazda, Zeus and Krishna, unicorns and Trinity. My focus is there is only one God, the Father while the Lord Jesus Christ is not God but a man approved by God:

Acts 2:22 New King James Version (NKJV)

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—

My basis of faith is what is written in the Bible not from strange stories, theories or legends weaved by people who just guessed about things.

 

[We Never Know]

If you strongly believe there is no God, then you have faith in that belief. For me a true atheist is someone who doesn't care if there is a God or not - like the animals, insects and fish - which are concerned only on their daily survival.

On the other hand, those who believe in god or gods which people call theists are harboring their own respective beliefs, believing theirs is right but at the end of all things, their beliefs are useless and share no advantage over the atheists.

I think, people have gone in different ways instead of God's way. Strangely enough, some people are atheists because they are disillusioned over their former religion that they stopped searching and they think that looking for an invisible God is just a waste of time. So in this strong belief that there is no God, they have formulated a series of "tenets or dogma" like the Big Bang, Evolution and so forth and so on.

Atheists are entitled to their beliefs as the theists are entitled to theirs. But for me, I will stick to my bible:

1 Corinthians 8:6 New International Version (NIV)

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Even when others believe in UFOs, Ahura Mazda, Zeus and Krishna, unicorns and Trinity. My focus is there is only one God, the Father while the Lord Jesus Christ is not God but a man approved by God:

Acts 2:22 New King James Version (NKJV)

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—

My basis of faith is what is written in the Bible not from strange stories, theories or legends weaved by people who just guessed about things.

If a person's stance is no God exists, it's not a faith or a belief. It's a state of mind, acceptance of no evidence exists.
Atheism isn't about faith or belief, it's a state of mind. In our minds God doesn't exist. There is no evidence that God does exist so why would we accept anything different?
You believe God exist because of mythical stories and a book written by men yet you cannot show any evidence God actually does exist. That's why what you have is called faith and belief.

 

[blü 2]

I believe it can be the other way around. So, we might know that Jesus is God, yet what are His Spiritual attributes.

First Jesus repeatedly denies he's God, never once claims to be God. Not till the 4th century CE does he get to be promoted.

Second, what test will let the onlooker distinguish the spiritual from the imaginary?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you strongly believe there is no God, then you have faith in that belief. For me a true atheist is someone who doesn't care if there is a God or not - like the animals, insects and fish - which are concerned only on their daily survival.

On the other hand, those who believe in god or gods which people call theists are harboring their own respective beliefs, believing theirs is right but at the end of all things, their beliefs are useless and share no advantage over the atheists.

I think, people have gone in different ways instead of God's way. Strangely enough, some people are atheists because they are disillusioned over their former religion that they stopped searching and they think that looking for an invisible God is just a waste of time. So in this strong belief that there is no God, they have formulated a series of "tenets or dogma" like the Big Bang, Evolution and so forth and so on.

Atheists are entitled to their beliefs as the theists are entitled to theirs. But for me, I will stick to my bible:

1 Corinthians 8:6 New International Version (NIV)

yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

Even when others believe in UFOs, Ahura Mazda, Zeus and Krishna, unicorns and Trinity. My focus is there is only one God, the Father while the Lord Jesus Christ is not God but a man approved by God:

Acts 2:22 New King James Version (NKJV)

“Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—

My basis of faith is what is written in the Bible not from strange stories, theories or legends weaved by people who just guessed about things.

Would you like it if I defined what a Christian is? Think about it.

 

[blü 2]

Would you like it if I defined what a Christian is? Think about it.

I seem to remember being told in (Pisco) Sunday school that a Christian is anyone who acknowledges Jesus as their savior, end of story.

 

[MJFlores]

If a person's stance is no God exists, it's not a faith or a belief. It's a state of mind, acceptance of no evidence exists.
Atheism isn't about faith or belief, it's a state of mind. In our minds God doesn't exist. There is no evidence that God does exist so why would we accept anything different?
You believe God exist because of mythical stories and a book written by men yet you cannot show any evidence God actually does exist. That's why what you have is called faith and belief.

I have heard atheist say religion is just a state of mind and as you said - Atheism isn't about faith or belief, it's a state of mind. Then, that is your religion. It is like matter and dark matter, both are matter so that is the matter or as if it does matter.

The only thing about atheists is that you don't need to go to church, sing and give offerings to the one who is invisible - not having a religion is also the freedom of religion. I go to church twice a week, to worship the Father and hear His truth while you [an atheist, I suppose would watch a movie at home or something.

For me, the Lord God exist not because of mythical stories but because everybody exist - the earth exists, life exist, bacteria exists, oxygen exists, gravity exists - no stories, just common sense. When I see a house, I know for sure that someone built it same is true when I see the universe.

Believing in something and not believing in something - are two faiths - just two religions opposing each other.
A plant does not believe in anything, hence there is no faith, a no brainer.

 

[JChnsc19]

My definition for the purpose of this post is someone who rejects the belief or claim or whatever that god or gods exist. The rejection of the belief is not a belief in the rejection. It’s not belief, it’s non belief or the rejection of, it’s a negative position. Good grief

 

[MJFlores]

My definition for the purpose of this post is someone who rejects the belief or claim or whatever that god or gods exist. The rejection of the belief is not a belief in the rejection. It’s not belief, it’s non belief or the reflection of, it’s a negative position. Good grief

If a person believes there are gods, he is a theist.
If a person believes in a god with three persons, he is a theist
If a person believes in one true God, he is a theist
No matter how many gods, true or false, he is a theist and nothing special?
Weird isn't it?

If a person does not believe in any God, he is an atheist.
How about Tom Cruise? He is a Scientologist.
And in the Church of Scientology, they do not preach or impose the idea of God among their members.

To wit:

... the Church of Scientology has no set dogma concerning God that it imposes on its members. As with all its tenets, Scientology does not ask individuals to accept anything on faith alone. Rather, as one's level of spiritual awareness increases through participation in Scientology auditing and training, one attains his own certainty of every dynamic. Accordingly, only when the Seventh Dynamic (spiritual) is reached in its entirety will one discover and come to a full understanding of the Eighth Dynamic (infinity) and one's relationship to the Supreme Being.

Scientology - Wikipedia

Does that make them atheist? Unless of course, atheist managed to "evolve" themselves into something else. Organize themselves as a church eliminating the belief in God and the hula-boos.

The fact is we could believe anything - a million gods, 3 in 1 god [like a coffee in a sachet], one true God or no God. It is really up to the individual on which path he chooses, it is his choice - good or bad, it doesn't really matter. What matters is it is freedom.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt insisted that people in all nations of the world shared Americans’ entitlement to four freedoms: the freedom of speech and expression, the freedom to worship God in his own way, freedom from want and freedom from fear.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/franklin-d-roosevelt-speaks-of-four-freedoms

As for myself, I believe there is more to life than this like what the late Micheal Jackson and the late Freddie Mercury sang. They never found the answer - what that is.

They never found the answer which is written in the Bible all along.

Ecclesiastes 12:13 New International Version (NIV)
Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the duty of all mankind.

 

[ChristineM]

In other words, any belief in the existence of a g-d, and the person is a theist?
^

Is this your definition of theism? Its yes, or no. In other words, you are being unclear.


...

I am not speaking (writing) "in other words" i am writing in my words and my words quote directly the dictionary definition.

If your words (that you, insultingly, keep insisting should be my words) do not agree with the oxford english dictionary definition of the word 'atheism' i suggest you take it up with them.

I have now explained this to you twice, i do not expect to have to explain it a 3rd time.

 

[blü 2]

Going by I presume, an non religious perspective, and interpretation, yet you believe those verses, [which are theoretical, over the ones, where He does?

I don't believe they're true ie that they're accurate statements about reality. But I understand what they say, and it takes no particular skill to spot the inconsistencies, some of them egregious.

The whole thing about 'ye are gods' is claiming divinity. Jesus is claiming to be higher than the angels.[higher than the angels is G-d.

No, both Jesus and Paul agree that the Father is God and Jesus is Lord ie 2ic. Jesus says, for instance, that he is not God (Luke 18:19, John 10:29, 14:1, 14:28, 17:3 &c); has no power of his own, only what the Father allows him (Matthew 20:23, 24:36, John 5:19, 5:30, 14:10 &c); that he comes to earth not of his own will or for his own purposes but for the Father's (John 6:38, 8:42 &c) ; that he worships the Father as his god (John 20:17 &c); and so on. As I said, the Trinity notion isn't invented till the 4th century, and is incoherent ('a mystery in the strict sense') anyway.

So, right now, you have a theoretical 'imaginary', yet perhaps it has real attribution.

If that were so, I'd expect God to have a definition appropriate to a real being, one with objective existence, such that if we found a real god we could determine that it was god / a god.

Do you know of such a definition?

Can you tell me what the real quality 'godness' is, that distinguishes an authentic real god from a real non-god?

Perhaps, the imaginary, like your selective text reference and interpretation, is more to do with you, making an assumption about something, instead of paralleling it to realness.

Things can exist in two ways. They can have objective existence, like air, the moon, your mother; or they can be wholly imaginary and exist only as concepts in individual brains, with no real counterpart.

Or can you point me to some objective test that will distinguish the 'spiritual' from the imaginary?

 

[blü 2]

In other words, you like Yeshua, you just dont think he is deity. Were getting somewhere.

I'm interested in the Jesus, or rather the five or six Jesuses, of the bible. There's only one biography of Jesus, that written by the author of Mark, devising scenes about Jesus around what he thinks are messianic prophecies in the Tanakh. His version is the single basis for the authors of Matthew and Luke, and more loosely by John. The author of Matthew, though he still needs Mark for his biography, 'corrects' and expands Mark because he has his own concept of Jesus eg Jesus should be born by divine insemination (Greek tradition) not by adoption as per Psalm 2:7 (Hebrew tradition), shouldn't be Mark's sinful mortal who needs to be baptized by JtB, &c. The author of Luke then does a similar thing to Mark and Matthew (but must rely on Mark for biography). And John tells it his own way again, but still recognizably on the frame of Mark's version.

If there was an historical Jesus ─ and none is necessary to account for Mark, hence the other gospels ─ then like Paul and the gospel authors we know nothing about him as a real person except perhaps that he was a player in the Jerusalem religious industry, had a message like JtB's, Get ready, the Kingdom is at hand!, and was crucified; though Paul says (Philippians 2:8-11) that he wasn't called Jesus in his lifetime, and there's a scholarly argument that the reference to the crucifixion in verse 8 there is a later gloss, so even that may be an embellishment.

 

[PureX]

Of course some people indeed have blind faith in science, but I know of no basis on which you could say it was a general characteristic of atheists.

Why then did you prefer it to materialism / physicalism, when as I'm sure you're aware 'scientism' is a put-down word implying unreasoned faith in science?

Materialism is a fancy word for the assertion that reality is defined by physics, not happenstance. That in itself does not rise to the functional level of a 'religion'. Many atheists are materialists. Few are 'religious' about it. The difference, I would say, is the belief that science is the only reasonable pathway to truth. Within that belief resides several exclusionary and faith-based ideals that mimic religious ideology quite closely, and tend to result in very similar behavior.

 

[Tiberius]

Atheism means without theism so yes, it is a religion for those that have not figured that out yet.

So a lack of religion is in itself a religion?

How does that work?

Does a lack of food count as a type of food? Does a lack of a hobby count as a kind of hobby? "Oh yes, I have a very interesting hobby of not having hobbies. It doesn't take up much of my time."

 

[PureX]

Everyone knows that science has not got an answer for everything, so why the national emergency on your part when scientism is not a thing? Spellcheck doesn't even recognize it as a word.

Spellcheck is probably not the most reasonable place to learn of current religious/philosophical trends.

 

[JChnsc19]

I have heard atheist say religion is just a state of mind and as you said - Atheism isn't about faith or belief, it's a state of mind. Then, that is your religion. It is like matter and dark matter, both are matter so that is the matter or as if it does matter.

The only thing about atheists is that you don't need to go to church, sing and give offerings to the one who is invisible - not having a religion is also the freedom of religion. I go to church twice a week, to worship the Father and hear His truth while you [an atheist, I suppose would watch a movie at home or something.

For me, the Lord God exist not because of mythical stories but because everybody exist - the earth exists, life exist, bacteria exists, oxygen exists, gravity exists - no stories, just common sense. When I see a house, I know for sure that someone built it same is true when I see the universe.

Believing in something and not believing in something - are two faiths - just two religions opposing each other.
A plant does not believe in anything, hence there is no faith, a no brainer.

The lord god exists because everyone exists? So you believe in all gods? If not, how did you know which god to pick?

 

[PureX]

So a lack of religion is in itself a religion?

How does that work?

Does a lack of food count as a type of food? Does a lack of a hobby count as a kind of hobby? "Oh yes, I have a very interesting hobby of not having hobbies. It doesn't take up much of my time."

Atheism is not "the lack of religion". Atheism is the philosophical proposition that no gods exist unless they can be proven to exist by we humans. And this proposition can be held and expressed "religiously", depending on how we define religion.

 

[blü 2]

Materialism is a fancy word for the assertion that reality is defined by physics, not happenstance. That in itself does not rise to the functional level of a 'religion'. Many atheists are materialists. Few are 'religious' about it. The difference, I would say, is the belief that science is the only reasonable pathway to truth.

Depends on how you define 'truth'. I think a statement is true to the extent that it conforms to/ corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality (the 'correspondence' view). It has the great advantage of an objective test for what's true.

And using that definition, can you suggest a better alternative (one that's presently known and available) than the methods of reasoned enquiry, that is, the methods science and of history?

And if you have a different definition of truth, please put it on the table. It may be the difference between our views.

Within that belief resides several exclusionary and faith-based ideals that mimic religious ideology quite closely, and tend to result in very similar behavior.

You assume that eg scientific method is admired for its own sake, whereas round my way it's admired because it works.

Should a better approach become available for answering the question, What's true in reality? I'd be fascinated and delighted to hear it.

 

[ratiocinator]

Atheism is the philosophical proposition that no gods exist unless they can be proven to exist by we humans.

Genuine question: where did you get this definition of atheism from? I've seen many but never this one. Language is fluid but I don't think that most people who use the term "atheism" mean this by it.

I specifically don't believe that no gods exist unless they can be proven to exists by humans - it's a daft proposition.

I use the term atheist to mean not having a belief in god(s) (as for example: Oxford Dictionaries or wiki or Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy). The reason why I'm an atheist is lack of any evidence (proof is not available outside of pure logic or mathematics) for any god(s) or any other reason to take any of them seriously.

It's obviously not impossible that god(s) could exist and there be no evidence for it/them.

 

[Augustus]

Words can mean many things depending on the context they are used in. Discussions like these tend to ignore this fact in favour of empty claims of authority based on personal preference.

Arguing what words mean outwith any context is somewhat meaningless as we frequently use words in perfectly legitimate and understandable ways to convey meanings which differ to their dictionary definitions.

This applies to atheism, religion, dogma, sacred or whatever other term is relevant in issues like this.

Fortunately, language in use is far richer than the pallid definitions dictionary pedants would have people believe exist as reified truths.

The problem is that this requires good faith on behalf of both parties which tends to be lacking in discussions like this.

 

[MJFlores]

The lord god exists because everyone exists? So you believe in all gods? If not, how did you know which god to pick?

That should be a statement not a question. The Lord God exists because of His marvelous creation.
If the Lord God did not create man, you and I won't be talking about Him, wouldn't we?
But the thing is we exist, the universe exists even though the scientists say:



Bummer....

Are we mere accidents? Is everything a series organized beautiful accidents and coincidences?
It just happened that the Sun is just about right, and it just happened that the Earth's distance from the Sun is just about right? The Earth just happened to have a right sized moon and oh boy, just one because if there's none, it would be deadly having more than one would be chaotic. Our atmosphere is just right 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.03% carbon dioxide with very small percentages of other elements. Our atmosphere also contains water vapor. The Earth's surface is abundant in life - what could be seen and what couldn't be seen - bacteria, plankton and so forth [ unlike other planets]. What is there not to appreciate the Creator's works?



Something tells me there is more to this....

The whole world have different concepts about God, it is a forest out there. In fact there are just too many religions that it is nauseating and frustrating. Unbelievably people cling to their faiths in the belief that this is the genuine McCoy and they wouldn't dare to accept the truth because they could not handle the truth.

I was born as a Catholic, raised as a Catholic and educated as a Catholic. In the end, I concluded Catholicism is riddled with errors and I have to do away with it. So I read about other religions - Hinduism [idol worship is not my thing, I ain't going to kneel over a piece of wood], Islam [what's the problem with Sunni and Shia, it is a ridiculous issue], Ancient Roman / Greek religion [really?] and Protestantism [errors exists also in their so called "Christian" beliefs].

You asked: So you believe in all gods?


Read about them, they were nice read....

Which leads me to your last question - If not, how did you know which god to pick?

It must be from the Bible. Couldn't be from the Vedas {Hinduism [idol worship is not my thing, I ain't going to kneel over a piece of wood]},and couldn't be from the Koran { Islam [what's the problem with Sunni and Shia, it is a ridiculous issue]}.



THE BIBLE IS consists of sixty-six (66) books and written by more than forty (40) men including the Prophet Moses, the King David and the Apostle Paul. However, because the books of the Bible were written by men, others immediately dismissed the Bible as the word of God. They asked, “How can the Bible be the word of God if it is written only by men?” Thus, they dismissed the Bible as a “sacred text” and see it only as a human text that can be analyzed and criticized like any other literary works.


THEY WERE COMMANDED BY
GOD TO WRITE HIS WORDS

Not because the biblical books were written by men it does not necessarily means that the Bible is not God’s word, not a “sacred text.” These men wrote God’s words because God commanded them to do so. Jeremiah wrote the biblical book “Jeremiah” because God ordered Him to do so:

“This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: 'Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you.” (Jeremiah 30:2 NIV)

Even in the Christian era, the apostles like Apostle John, were commanded by God to write His words:

“I, John, both your brother and companion in the tribulation and kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was on the island that is called Patmos for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ. I was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day, and I heard behind me a loud voice, as of a trumpet, saying, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last," and, "What you see, write in a book and send it to the seven churches which are in Asia: to Ephesus, to Smyrna, to Pergamos, to Thyatira, to Sardis, to Philadelphia, and to Laodicea.” (Revelation 1:9-11 NKJV)

Thus, the biblical books were written by men whom God commissioned to do so. What they wrote is God’s words, “'Write in a book all the words I have spoken to you.”

It is like a letter which the president ordered his secretary to write. Technically, it is written by the secretary, but it does not necessarily means that the letter is not from the president.

The prophets and the apostles wrote the biblical books because God commaned them to do so.


THEY WROTE THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE
THROUGH GOD’S INSPIRATION

Not only that God commanded them to write His words, but they wrote the biblical books through God’s inspiration. This is what Apostle Paul said in II Timothy 3:15-17:

“And that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” (NKJV)

This is why the writers of the biblical books are called “inspired writers.” These men wrote through God’s inspirations or they were inspired by God when writing the biblical books.

The notion that the biblical books were written by men make others to immediately dismissed the Bible as God’s word because “all men commit mistakes.” However, they failed to consider that these men who wrote the biblical vooks were inspired by God. What does it mean that these men who wrote the biblical books were inspired by God? In Revelation 10:4 this is what we could read:

“Now when the seven thunders uttered their voices, I was about to write; but I heard a voice from heaven saying to me, ‘Seal up the things which the seven thunders uttered, and do not write them.’” (Revelation 10:4 NKJV)

“They wrote through God’s inspiration” means the Lord God guided them as they wrote His words. It is the Lord God Himself who decides what should be written and what should not be written. It is also the Lord God who decides when the inspired writers will end the writing of the biblical book:

“But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge.” (Daniel 12:4 NIV)


“He said to me, "And now, Daniel, close the book and put a seal on it until the end of the world. Meanwhile, many people will waste their efforts trying to understand what is happening.” (Daniel 12:4 TEV)

Thus, the real issue here is not if the biblical books were written by men, but if those men who wrote the biblical books were truly inspired by God and what they wrote are truly God’s words.


WHAT GOD WAS, THE WORD WAS

God is unique in that He is almighty (Gen. 17:1). He has unlimited power. His will always comes to pass since nothing could ever prevent its fulfillment. God’s words possess the same quality:

“For no word from God shall be void of power.” (Luke 1:37, ASV)

Every word from the Almighty God has power. Like God Himself, His words are of unlimited power. How is God’s power manifested in His words?

“Bring in your idols to tell us what is going to happen. Tell us what the former things were, so that we may consider them and know their final outcome. Or declare to us the things to come, tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods. Do something, whether good or bad, so that we will be dismayed and filled with fear.” (Is. 41:22-23, NIV)

God is able to declare what the future holds. He can tell us the things to come long before they happen. False gods, such as idols and graven images, cannot do or say anything, let alone declare the future. And it is this power of God, which can be seen when what He says come to pass, that proves that He alone is the true God. God is able to “make known the end from the beginning” – or declare what will ultimately and certainly come to pass – because He himself, with His infinite power, brings His words to fulfillment (Is. 46:9-10). This characteristic of God and of His words distinguishes Him from man. Man by Himself cannot “declare the things to come” since he cannot foretell even the day of his own death (Js. 4:14).

Therefore, God’s power and the power of His words are found in no other. This power of the divine word, “declaring the things to come,” cannot be found in any “human text.”

Is the Bible truly God’s word? Did the writers of the biblical books truly write through God’s inspiration? How true that what they wrote are indeed God’s words? Only the scripture that have the power of the divine word or the attributes of the word of God can rightfully claim to be the Sacred Scripture where the words of God are indeed written.