NightCrawler
05-24-2006, 07:50 AM
Okay, so I keep hearing over and over again that either the whole bible is true, or it is all false.

I am sick and tired of hearing it. It is bullcrap. You know it, you know the implications, you know the realistic applications, and (of course) you cannot find any single thing that fits such a statement.

For example, the Church of Latter Day Saints, they claim Jesus Christ existed! That is a true statement, but the notion that God has siblings is complete and utter bullcrap! So you can't use the concept "either the whole mormon bible is true, or it is all false" because I just gave contradicting statements for both.

So, coming back to our Truth, which has over 30 versions in english, if I am not mistaken, .... how can you make such a statement? I mean, Amodman and I were just discussing whether it was a half of Adam or just his rib.

Or are they just using the statement "either it is all true or it is all false" on the moral realm/basis?

Cuz then we can use the moral aspect argument. The code of Hammurabi, it says that murder is wrong! And punishable by death! It MUST be all right or wrong! This instance is right, so the entire code must be right! BUT WAIT.

"[law] 103
If, while on the journey, an enemy take away from him anything that he had, the broker shall swear by God and be free of obligation."

But we aren't supposed to swear by God! SO THAT MUST MEAN THE ENTIRE CODE OF HAMMURABI'S LAWS ARE WRONG!....

Okay, so I have been ticked off, I hope you guys can see my logic and frustration behind this rant.

NightCrawler
05-24-2006, 07:54 AM
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html

Undomiel
05-24-2006, 08:15 AM
Wow, what a true post.
i totally agree.

terrasin
05-24-2006, 01:08 PM
.99999999999999999999999~ does not equal 1

*ducks and runs for cover*

CJ

skynes
05-25-2006, 12:39 AM
Would you like to know why I say either it's all true or all wrong?

Because if God inspired and protected it (as the Bible says), then it must be all correct, or God has screwed up.

If He didn't inspire and protect it, why waste our time with it? Since we can never be 100% sure where the errors and fallacies are, we cannot trust any of it.
If God can't even take the time to protect His own Bible, it must be filled with a load of garbage.

agent_c68
05-25-2006, 02:40 AM
I see what you are saying, but I can understand the frustration with it.

It's not that it's all 100% true or 100% false, but it is how you claim it. For example, if you claim to be Christian, but deny the resurrection, then you are not Christian. Usually it's another, less defining topic that is considered untrue.

And it’s less “True” and more “Believe.” If you don’t believe parts of the Bible, then what is true in the bible? How can you say that you believe this part, but not this other part? How can you 100% believe something that is < 100% true to you? There are still issues on interpretation and relevance, but if you believe that parts of it are not true, then what about the next verse? Chapter? Book?

In the reverse, is stuff that includes truth, but has falsehood in it, still 100% wrong? Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany were evil (and are still considered evil today), but does that mean that everything they did was evil? What about the Volkswagen, which was one of Hitler’s ideas? Do you consider Volkswagens to be evil? (honestly, this is a really weak example)

What about this, someone who has been living the wrong lifestyle gives you good advice, is that advice considered bad because of the person giving it? Or do you not listen to someone who has been living upright because they said the same thing as the person living the wrong lifestyle?

A good lie has some truth in it, or else it would be easily spotted as a lie. Having truth does not make something true, but being true all the way through is what it takes for something to be “true” (maybe the lack of falsehood is a better definition)

It’s always a good idea to look into what is meant with simple slogans like this “All or None” thing.

terrasin
05-25-2006, 05:14 AM
One of the biggest things that irritate me is when people start getting into the discussion of "Is it figuritive or literal?"

CJ

NightCrawler
05-25-2006, 08:36 AM
Would you like to know why I say either it's all true or all wrong?Of course

Because if God inspired and protected it (as the Bible says), then it must be all correct, or God has screwed up.You realize the fallacy involved with a source claiming its own authenticity. You must assume it has authority before you even compute what it says, which is that it has authority. Circular.

But God cannot screw up, but man can. For example, my Bible doesn't have the book of the Maccabees -- was that book inspired? If it were, then why is it only protected under the Roman Catholic canon? If it is not, then why was it protected under the Roman Catholic canon?

If He didn't inspire and protect it, why waste our time with it? Since we can never be 100% sure where the errors and fallacies are, we cannot trust any of it.
If God can't even take the time to protect His own Bible, it must be filled with a load of garbage.I never said He didn't inspire it, it could be the case that it is inspired and right on 99% of facts and all (100% of the) stances of moral obligations (due to human writing).

So, why 'waste my time'? Because I know it is useful, on moral stance and also the historical. I trust my Bible because God has taught me through it, showing me what He wants. I know it bears Truth.

But if I found something is wrong, like an inconsistency (such as the two blind men miracle vs the same instance with only mentioning one [explained as 'they just didn't mention the other blind man'], whether that is a true inconsistency or not) then I can't say 'THE ENTIRE THING IS WRONG'...

NightCrawler
05-25-2006, 08:45 AM
It’s always a good idea to look into what is meant with simple slogans like this “All or None” thing.
I am somewhat confused by this statement. Are you saying, it is always good to read into statements that may fit the false dilemma fallacy, testing them?

(For example, it is not a false dichotomy when Christ said "He who does not gather, scatters", although it IS an all-or-nothing statement. If you test what His statement is, then you will find it true.)

agent_c68
05-25-2006, 09:17 PM
I was just saying everyone should look into what slogans are really saying.

skynes
05-26-2006, 12:59 AM
I take the Bible as thus:

We do not have original manuscripts. So we do not know what the Bible 'originally' said, we can only guess.

Should we find that the Bible is wrong somewhere, that shows that God doesn't protect it.

If God doesn't protect it, then we cannot be sure of anything the Bible says, ALL of it is cast into doubt.

NightCrawler
05-26-2006, 06:46 AM
I take the Bible as thus:

We do not have original manuscripts. So we do not know what the Bible 'originally' said, we can only guess.

Should we find that the Bible is wrong somewhere, that shows that God doesn't protect it.

If God doesn't protect it, then we cannot be sure of anything the Bible says, ALL of it is cast into doubt.
So, answer me about the book of Maccabees?

disciple
05-26-2006, 01:37 PM
.99999999999999999999999~ does not equal 1

*ducks and runs for cover*
LOL.

*agrees*

*ducks and runs for cover*

One of the biggest things that irritate me is when people start getting into the discussion of "Is it figuritive or literal?"

CJ
Same here. People around here do a lot of "it's figurative" for things that they don't like to hear.

amodman
05-26-2006, 02:50 PM
I take the Bible as thus:

We do not have original manuscripts. So we do not know what the Bible 'originally' said, we can only guess.

Should we find that the Bible is wrong somewhere, that shows that God doesn't protect it.

If God doesn't protect it, then we cannot be sure of anything the Bible says, ALL of it is cast into doubt.

God gave us his word, it's our charge to protect it. I mean, your argument is already shown flawed when you look at the differences of the Bible in English translations alone. This stems from differing ideas of what is supposed to be translated how, as well as what the translators decided they wanted to say with it. However, every single word God has given to mankind is not required to have a relationship with him. If that's so, then we're pretty screwed (along with everyone around before the torah was even originally put in written form, people who've never even seen the Bible, etc.). We've got linguistic inconsistities, whole books debated whether they should or should not be considered official Bible cannon, literally billions of ways (every person on the planet is entitled to their own opinion) of interpreting the words read out of the Bible. However, we're fairly sure (there are no absolutes in human interpretation) that the basics of what was written in God's Word still is there today. You may be reading the 20th quotation of what was inspired, but you're still reading what was inspired.

somasoul
05-27-2006, 09:58 AM
The Bible is not all true

When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. 6"Lord," he said, "my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering."

There a centurion's servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. 3The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant.

One passage says the centurion asked Christ, another says elders did.

Obviously, there is some inconsistancy.

agent_c68
05-27-2006, 09:47 PM
The Bible is not all true





One passage says the centurion asked Christ, another says elders did.

Obviously, there is some inconsistancy.

In consistancy, or is one of them not telling the whole story? Please check out This article (http://www.jeff-jackson.com/new/religion/Q/Q7A.html)

skynes
05-31-2006, 04:23 AM
So when the Bible says that God's word is eternal and standing firm in the heavens, you're telling me it was a lie?

If our Bible contains lies and errors, how can we trust God? We have nothing solid to go on anymore.

Emotions cannot be trusted.
Experiences change depending on their persons viewpoint.
Opinions are meaningless.

What foundation is there for our Faith?


If I cannot trust what I read in the Bible as solid truth then the entire thing is not worth reading. Everything I believe is a lie.

jesusfollower
06-02-2006, 09:59 AM
i believe the Bible is all true
but people tend t pick out things that may seem wrong in the bible but often there is nothing wrong

some times there are mis-translations
other times they may be read out of context
and the other thing is that the writers all wrote the things down from their viewing adn they may have seen different things

but thats what i think anyway

NightCrawler
06-02-2006, 10:02 AM
So when the Bible says that God's word is eternal and standing firm in the heavens, you're telling me it was a lie?How do you know that the Bible that we have is all only God's word? That is, is it all God or is it God and man? Or better focused: is the verse says "God's word" does it mean the Bible, or does it mean that what God speaks or decrees is holy and eternal? Difference being Bible being man and God or just God.

If our Bible contains lies and errors, how can we trust God? We have nothing solid to go on anymore.This is all on faith anyway. Abraham didn't have the Bible, yet his faith was accreditted to him as righteousness.

Emotions cannot be trusted.
Experiences change depending on their persons viewpoint.
Opinions are meaningless.

What foundation is there for our Faith?God moving and guiding us.


If I cannot trust what I read in the Bible as solid truth then the entire thing is not worth reading. Everything I believe is a lie.I disagree, and further... why would you need a book to believe the Word of God?

unshakeable15
06-02-2006, 02:36 PM
Another question (or more): We have these 66 books (or more, if you're Catholic) that we call God's Word, but what about the followers of the Way who lived before the 7th century? They didn't have the canon we do now.

To go along with that, what makes Paul's letter to Galatia so much more special than C.S. Lewis' radio talks on what it means to be a Christian (later written down in a book called Mere Christianity)? Time is pretty much the only difference. We've had more than a millenia to dissect Paul's works and decide that what he says contains truth from God. We've only had 50 years or so to do the same to Lewis'.

(Please do not say i am not respecting the Bible. i give it great respect, just as i do other books, even more so with the Bible. But i believe God's Word to be Jesus, not ink on a page.)

disciple
06-02-2006, 02:39 PM
An interesting point. The only difference I know of is how Paul came to be a Christian, by way of something radical. *shrug* Okay, I've made my attempt at a contribution to these boards for the day. :D

NightCrawler
06-02-2006, 03:34 PM
An interesting point. The only difference I know of is how Paul came to be a Christian, by way of something radical. *shrug* Okay, I've made my attempt at a contribution to these boards for the day. :D
Mr. Clive Staples Lewis was an atheist, something radical changed him too.

disciple
06-02-2006, 03:36 PM
Mr. Clive Staples Lewis was an atheist, something radical changed him too.
I meant of the heavenly nature. But anyway. It's not my opinion I am stating, I'm just laying stuff out there. I'm trying to make a worthwhile contribution here! :P

amodman
06-03-2006, 11:11 PM
Another question (or more): We have these 66 books (or more, if you're Catholic) that we call God's Word, but what about the followers of the Way who lived before the 7th century? They didn't have the canon we do now.

To go along with that, what makes Paul's letter to Galatia so much more special than C.S. Lewis' radio talks on what it means to be a Christian (later written down in a book called Mere Christianity)? Time is pretty much the only difference. We've had more than a millenia to dissect Paul's works and decide that what he says contains truth from God. We've only had 50 years or so to do the same to Lewis'.

(Please do not say i am not respecting the Bible. i give it great respect, just as i do other books, even more so with the Bible. But i believe God's Word to be Jesus, not ink on a page.)

I actually totally agree. It seems funny to me how many times I hear scholars refer to the Bible and prophets as Divinely Inspired, and then go on to say, "And of course we could never dream to match them and their levels of knowledge about God." Ummm...what? You saying prophets can't pop up today? I know some (people with the prophetical gift, anyway). Whose to say more since the "canon" that has been written hasn't been Divinely Inspired? The only way we can be sure is study, prayer, and God' guidance. Before Moses, there wasn't even a thing written down. God's word and statutes were passed down orally (it's why he had his own people).

unshakeable15
06-04-2006, 06:45 PM
Exactly. i would count some of Augustine's writings to fall under some of the same authority (or near so) as the writings in the New Testament. And he lived 600 years after they did! Oh my gosh!

skynes
06-05-2006, 12:59 AM
This is all on faith anyway. Abraham didn't have the Bible, yet his faith was accreditted to him as righteousness.

Abraham did not have a Bible, so he was not expected to live by it, we DO have a Bible, easy access to them too which changes things greatly.

Romans 10:17 "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

Our faith is increased by reading and exposure to God's word. Those who do not have access to one, as it says in Romans 1, are judged by their conscience.

Psalm 1
1 Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor stands in the path of sinners, Nor sits in the seat of the scornful;

2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night.

3 He shall be like a tree Planted by the rivers of water, That brings forth its fruit in its season, Whose leaf also shall not wither; And whatever he does shall prosper.

4 The ungodly are not so, But are like the chaff which the wind drives away.

5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

6 For the Lord knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the ungodly shall perish.


Those who read and meditate upon God's Word WILL bring forth fruit, will not fail in bringing forth fruit and will be able to stand against opposition

Psalm 119: 160 " The entirety of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever. "

In reference to the Bible - the entirety of it is truth. Not a bit here and there, ALL of it.


2 Timothy 3:16, 17
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. "

What we have is the Bible is what we need to be complete and ready for every good work. Not the Bible + other stuff. The Bible alone is sufficient.

2 Peter 3: 15-16
and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,

16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Peter considered Paul's letters to be scripture.

I disagree, and further... why would you need a book to believe the Word of God?

Because the foundation of my Faith is that what God says is true and that the Bible is God's word to the world.
What is written there teaches me what God is like, who He is, how He works, things He's done.

How can I know Jesus is the Word of God?
Jesus told the Jews that if they'd read the Law and the Prophets they would KNOW who He is, because they spoke of Him.
He told them to trust and believe the Old Testament.

But if I cannot be sure what is truth and what is lie, how can I be sure Jesus was who He said He was? Or even if He said that at all?

NightCrawler
06-07-2006, 11:36 AM
Abraham did not have a Bible, so he was not expected to live by it, we DO have a Bible, easy access to them too which changes things greatly.

Romans 10:17 "So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

Our faith is increased by reading and exposure to God's word. Those who do not have access to one, as it says in Romans 1, are judged by their conscience.
I would think the opposite. Our faith is more tangibly secured by reading the scripture. Thus our faith falls on something else, which -- in my understanding -- is a counter-faith.

Psalm 1
1 Blessed is the man Who walks not in the counsel of the ungodly, Nor stands in the path of sinners, Nor sits in the seat of the scornful;

2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night.

3 He shall be like a tree Planted by the rivers of water, That brings forth its fruit in its season, Whose leaf also shall not wither; And whatever he does shall prosper.

4 The ungodly are not so, But are like the chaff which the wind drives away.

5 Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, Nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.

6 For the Lord knows the way of the righteous, But the way of the ungodly shall perish.


Those who read and meditate upon God's Word WILL bring forth fruit, will not fail in bringing forth fruit and will be able to stand against opposition
Word -- What God has spoken and guided personally? Or the Pentatuch? Or the Torah? Or do you think that David, cogently, was meaning the OT and NT??

Psalm 119: 160 " The entirety of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever. "

In reference to the Bible - the entirety of it is truth. Not a bit here and there, ALL of it.
This gets back to what the Lord speaks and guides, not specifically the Bible. Notice how it goes on to say that His righteous judgments (His works) endure forever. Not so much His inspirations.


2 Timothy 3:16, 17
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. "

What we have is the Bible is what we need to be complete and ready for every good work. Not the Bible + other stuff. The Bible alone is sufficient.
To this I would point to Jesus saying "Man does not live by bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God" I think that was.... Matthew 3:something. Now, what you have is something inconclusive, logically, with the next statement.

2 Peter 3: 15-16
and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,

16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

Peter considered Paul's letters to be scripture.
Is the person that wrote Timothy ... Peter? No, it was Paul. So what does it matter if Peter declares Paul's epistles as Scripture? Paul didn't say his epistles were. If he had declared his epistles to be scriptures, then we could deduce that he is claiming all of his epistles to be God breathed and such. It could also go that way if Paul declared Peter's epistles to be as well [Paul declare Peter's, Peter declaring Paul's, Paul declaring Peter's/Paul's/Etc. to be scriptures]

Because the foundation of my Faith is that what God says is true and that the Bible is God's word to the world.
What is written there teaches me what God is like, who He is, how He works, things He's done.
A foundation of my faith is the Bible as being what God has shown us -- Who He is, how He works, etc.

How can I know Jesus is the Word of God?
Logos? In the beginning was the Logos -- logic, system, word, constructor.
Jesus told the Jews that if they'd read the Law and the Prophets they would KNOW who He is, because they spoke of Him.
Okay, we are getting somewhere. The Law AND the prophets! So, then, you must be concluding that Peter, Paul, John and others were not only disciples and apostles, but also prophets. Right?
He told them to trust and believe the Old Testament.
Yeah.

But if I cannot be sure what is truth and what is lie, how can I be sure Jesus was who He said He was? Or even if He said that at all?
You can only be sure by faith what is Truth and what is a lie. Only by faith can you know who Jesus was and is, what He said He was and such. Faith -- which gives birth to the Holy Spirit (the Counsellor), right?

skynes
06-08-2006, 12:36 AM
If one part of the Bible is wrong it calls the entire thing into question.

Where is the truth? Where are the lies? How can we tell the difference?

Do we trust our own fallen judgement? Do we trust fallen theologians?

Is God somehow incapable of guaranteeing that what was written down is precisely what He wanted to the very letter and that He protected all through time?

This gets back to what the Lord speaks and guides, not specifically the Bible. Notice how it goes on to say that His righteous judgments (His works) endure forever. Not so much His inspirations.

The key word is 'AND'. It says the entirety of your word is truth AND your righteous judgements endure forever. The two are separate here.
The Bible is referred to as the 'word of God'
Why would this verse mean something else?

NightCrawler
06-18-2006, 06:42 PM
If one part of the Bible is wrong it calls the entire thing into question.
Not necessarily. For example, Jude was in danger of not being in the canon.* When Luther was trying to get that book out, he wasn't trying to get rid of the whole Bible. Just that book. So when one finds 'an error in the Bible' it should first be dealt with in prayer. Rereading the portion and its context, and then further questioning of that book. Of course, more prayer throughout.

Just because you find one thing wrong does not mean the whole Bible is wrong, because again... 66 books in the Protestant canon. It could just be one of the books.

Where is the truth?
Where God speaks or God speaks through man.
Where are the lies?
When man stops listening, miswrites or otherwise fails to keep it wholly God.
How can we tell the difference?
Holy Spirit, prayer and other God-given intuition.

Do we trust our own fallen judgement? Do we trust fallen theologians?
This is where it gets really hard. When I believe that Jude is not of God*, am I blaspheming out of ignorance and rather leaning on my own understanding?

Was Paul perfect? Was John the Baptist sinless? Clive Staples, was he without sin? Obviously, they are all fallen. But God has used each one, giving them each the Holy Spirit for guidance and divine instruction.**

Is God somehow incapable of guaranteeing that what was written down is precisely what He wanted to the very letter and that He protected all through time?
No, God is capable. But did He guarantee it? Or did man try to secure it so that Christians would be united and encouraged in the doctrine of faith? Or both?

But here is some similar interesting perspective. Was it that God placed Christ's arival perfectly so that it could be shared with the common tongue of latin or greek throughout that age? Or, as many atheists might agree, Christianity only spread so well because it had a common tongue like latin or greek? I believe it is the first. You, I would assume, would agree.

The key word is 'AND'. It says the entirety of your word is truth AND your righteous judgements endure forever. The two are separate here.
The Bible is referred to as the 'word of God'
Why would this verse mean something else?
Must've missed that. Es tut mir leid.

...Jude...* An example only for the sake of argument. I do not firmly believe it is unbiblical. In fact, I am reading into the Book of Enoch for some cross referencing.

** I believe that Paul, John the Baptist and CS Lewis each have been guided by God.

skynes
06-19-2006, 12:46 AM
Just because you find one thing wrong does not mean the whole Bible is wrong, because again... 66 books in the Protestant canon. It could just be one of the books.

You find one error, you need to question if there are errors elsewhere, where they are, what they say, what it means. One error DOES Call the bible into question.

Where God speaks or God speaks through man.

How can we tell where God spoke through man or where a man decided to speak for God?

When man stops listening, miswrites or otherwise fails to keep it wholly God.

And we tell the difference how? If we cannot interpret scripture using scripture (since we can't be sure what is flawed and what is not), How do we know?


Holy Spirit, prayer and other God-given intuition.

If I cannot trust the Bible, how can I be sure the Holy Spirit actually exists? And that my experiences AREN'T just my own head creating it or some other spiritual force?

We NEED something to solid to go by. Something unchanging that can be relied upon and trusted throughout the ages. Without that we have no guarantee on anything. We can never be sure our Faith is worth anything.


This is where it gets really hard. When I believe that Jude is not of God*, am I blaspheming out of ignorance and rather leaning on my own understanding?

I won't comment on the book of Jude, I know nothing about it.


Was Paul perfect? Was John the Baptist sinless? Clive Staples, was he without sin? Obviously, they are all fallen. But God has used each one, giving them each the Holy Spirit for guidance and divine instruction.

And we only have their own words to support that. Sin-filled, fallen words. Nothing solid, nothing that can be proven. We need to assume they're speaking the truth.

Very... Dangerous... Ground.

(yes I am being sarcastic)


No, God is capable. But did He guarantee it? Or did man try to secure it so that Christians would be united and encouraged in the doctrine of faith? Or both?

Why of course YES! Why didn't I see it before... The Bible authors intentionally put these promises of 'God' in there, saying how His word stands forever and that nothing of it will be added or removed. Simply so that people would believe what they said to be true...

But here is some similar interesting perspective. Was it that God placed Christ's arival perfectly so that it could be shared with the common tongue of latin or greek throughout that age? Or, as many atheists might agree, Christianity only spread so well because it had a common tongue like latin or greek? I believe it is the first. You, I would assume, would agree.

I'd say He did it cause He felt like it. I doubt it would have mattered about the time and era. If God wanted the Gospel to spread quickly and far reached, it would have, regardless of language.



It sounds like you're saying that we need to pray to see the truth and the lies in scripture, which written by man had errors and screw ups in it.
But on the other hand in order to pray to God, we first need to know who He is, how to speak to Him, can we speak to Him, how He works... we gain all this... From the error filled scriptures.

unshakeable15
06-19-2006, 03:21 PM
But here is some similar interesting perspective. Was it that God placed Christ's arival perfectly so that it could be shared with the common tongue of latin or greek throughout that age? Or, as many atheists might agree, Christianity only spread so well because it had a common tongue like latin or greek? I believe it is the first. You, I would assume, would agree.
I'd say He did it cause He felt like it. I doubt it would have mattered about the time and era. If God wanted the Gospel to spread quickly and far reached, it would have, regardless of language.
But why would God use the Supernatural when the natural works just as well? He's not one to paint his face in the stars for us to see. He's content simply to have the stars there in the first place.

That is, sure, God could have spread the good news through any means, even if everyone spoke gibberish to each other. BUT, he didn't, because he didn't need to. He already had a means in place.

Remember, just because God is supernatural doesn't mean he only uses supernatural methods. He also uses the natural (as is evidenced by you and me).

skynes
06-20-2006, 12:19 AM
I know that... What I meant is that God didn't do it then just because of the common languages. He did because He wanted to, He could have done it at anytime...

For all we know He was probably responsible for the common languages there in the first place!

What I meant is that He isn't limited to the events of each era, if He wants something done, it WILL be done.

NightCrawler
06-21-2006, 02:30 PM
You find one error, you need to question if there are errors elsewhere, where they are, what they say, what it means. One error DOES Call the bible into question.

How can we tell where God spoke through man or where a man decided to speak for God?

And we tell the difference how? If we cannot interpret scripture using scripture (since we can't be sure what is flawed and what is not), How do we know?
Holy Spirit. Paul needed it to write, and the churches he wrote to needed it to recieve letters.

If I cannot trust the Bible, how can I be sure the Holy Spirit actually exists? And that my experiences AREN'T just my own head creating it or some other spiritual force?
Have you seen healing? Have you seen visions? Have you seen the Lord provide miraculously when you pray to Him? Tell me, if you have seen these (one or more), how would you attribute it to anything other than the God you are praying to or flat-out serendipity?

We NEED something to solid to go by. Something unchanging that can be relied upon and trusted throughout the ages. Without that we have no guarantee on anything. We can never be sure our Faith is worth anything.
Did Paul or John or Peter need the NT letters to give them their faith? I didn't think so. They had proof: The Holy Spirit or seeing Christ themselves. Jesus said blessed are those that believe and didn't need tangible proof (context was Thomas believing after feeling Jesus' hands that had holes in them).

We only need what the Lord does not enable us to go without. I call it pathetic.

And we only have their own words to support that. Sin-filled, fallen words. Nothing solid, nothing that can be proven. We need to assume they're speaking the truth.

Very... Dangerous... Ground.

(yes I am being sarcastic)
: /


Why of course YES! Why didn't I see it before... The Bible authors intentionally put these promises of 'God' in there, saying how His word stands forever and that nothing of it will be added or removed. Simply so that people would believe what they said to be true...
Your tone doesn't inspire me to reply.

It sounds like you're saying that we need to pray to see the truth and the lies in scripture, which written by man had errors and screw ups in it.
But on the other hand in order to pray to God, we first need to know who He is, how to speak to Him, can we speak to Him, how He works... we gain all this... From the error filled scriptures.

Hold the phone.

You are proving my point. I didn't say that we must have error-filled scriptures, at all! I am just saying that even though the Bible is true, even if it wasn't, it wouldn't be a sack of crap. It would just take some more discernment (seeing what is congruent with God's promise and nature), as it already does.

skynes
06-22-2006, 12:48 AM
If the Bible wasn't true, then that really screws up God.

God does nothing half-hearted, He does nothing incomplete.
What He starts He finished and does it perfectly.

God gave His Word to the people of every Nation, so that Word must be perfect and 100% true. IF it is less than 100% true then it is NOT from God.

The same thing applied to Prophets.
Those who prophesied, if it did not come true, were declared not of God and were killed, by order of God Himself.

Why would God's word, filled with prophesies as it is, be under any different conditions?


How can we give people the Word of God and expect them to repent if what we're telling them isn't 100% true?

How can we say, oh I know the Bible says this and this, but it ACTUALLY means something entirely different and what's written there is wrong, and expect them to believe?

How can bring people the Word of God, if it isn't true?

The Jews were commanded to live by the Law and the Prophets, were they commanded to live by possible lies? Would God tell people to live by a lie?

God is 100% Truth, I highly highly doubt He would tolerate lies in His own word. I doubt even more that He would command someone to live by a lie.


Holy Spirit. Paul needed it to write, and the churches he wrote to needed it to recieve letters.

Al of Paul's writings need to be 100% true then, or the Holy Spirit had no part in it.

Did Paul or John or Peter need the NT letters to give them their faith? I didn't think so. They had proof: The Holy Spirit or seeing Christ themselves. Jesus said blessed are those that believe and didn't need tangible proof (context was Thomas believing after feeling Jesus' hands that had holes in them).


Well unfortunately we don't have Christ Himself in front of us to be proof of our Faith.
Jesus' words were "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

He didn't say 'tengible proof' He said seen, as in seen Him right in front of you.

Your tone doesn't inspire me to reply.

You're attacking the very rock bottom foundation of my Faith, the Truth of God's Word, what do you expect?

My Faith rests upon God being trustworthy, if that is proven to be false, imagine the result...

You are proving my point. I didn't say that we must have error-filled scriptures, at all! I am just saying that even though the Bible is true, even if it wasn't, it wouldn't be a sack of crap. It would just take some more discernment (seeing what is congruent with God's promise and nature), as it already does.

Yes it would. As I've already said, to have errors and lies in scripture denies God's very nature of being Truth. If the Bible was filled with lies, God would have replaced it with something else to teach us and globally informed the entire church of it.

Reeper
06-22-2006, 07:22 AM
Gotta say I agree with Skynes on this. I know... oh, shock, horror...

Anyway, a comment and then a question.

Comment:

Nightcrawler, I don't know if you realize it but you are floating very close to gnosticism. Unless I am interpreting what you are saying wrong. You are saying we need to weigh scripture against our own experiences and special revelation from God. Scripture cannot be trusted on its own, i.e. the word of God cannot be trusted on its own. It is simply God's word altered by man. That is gnosticism!!! Given there are many other aspects of gnosticism that you are not saying, but you are close. If I am misunderstanding you please explain.
Other than this Skynes basically said everything I would have said.

Question:

Nightcrawler, what church do you go to and who is your pastor? Just asking to see if what I am thinking is correct.

Peace

unshakeable15
06-22-2006, 11:45 AM
Question for you, Reeper:

Question:

Nightcrawler, what church do you go to and who is your pastor? Just asking to see if what I am thinking is correct.
Why should that matter?

As for your comment, i'm obviously not Nightcrawler, so i'll let him answer that, but i'm pretty certain that what he is saying is not putting personal experience above divine revelation. He's not saying that the Bible is a flawed book that you must sort through to find the truth. It's there. But you must also realize that the authors are human and they had a purpose behind what they wrote.

Take the four gospels. Each of them are different, but each have a lot of the same stories. Their difference comes in what each of them wanted to get across to the people they were writing to.

Reeper
06-22-2006, 12:26 PM
Just doing a little research. It doesn't matter in regards to the discussion. Just for my own knowledge.

I would have to disagree with you Mike on the other statement. The author (singular) was not human. He was, is, and will ever be divine. The people who wrote the books, actually physically wrote the words, were human, but they were writing under the direction of the holy spirit. Getting across what God wanted to get across.

I could simply repeat everything Skynes has said here regarding the authority of scripture but won't cause it has been said.

Peace

unshakeable15
06-22-2006, 12:43 PM
As a writer myself who loves writing in general, let me explain something about the process. It gives a great insight to my standpoint.

When you write*, there is a give and take. If you go into the story, or whatever, set on saying something in particular and you are immobile in that, you will come out with a story without life. It may be good, but it would be like putting together a robot; it may move and talk, but it is not alive.

If, instead, you write and let yourself get into a dialogue (for lack of a better word. It's not a dialogue in the same sense, but it's hard to describe to someone who's not experienced it), if you let yourself get into a dialogue with the words you're writing, you come out with something greater.

In doing that dialogue, you open yourself up to something greater than yourself**. Some writers might say it's the Muse, others, the spirits of the other writers before them; i say (and a lot of other, better writers before me) that it is the Spirit. It's not that God wants me to write a story taking the parable of the prodigal son and updating it; but as i go along, my story might take on that tint or hue, or draw some parallels from the Bible, or speak some truth about God that i myself didn't even know.

This, i feel, is what the authors of the Bible did. They wrote, with an idea in mind of telling the history of the nation of Israel, or of the things this man Jesus did, or admonishing a group of believers in a city hundreds of miles away. But they came out with a work that speaks beyond that time. So in a sense, yes, Paul didn't write, but at the same time, he did. He wrote as the Spirit wrote on his soul and it came out into the letters, so in the end the letters are pen strokes of both their hands.

*i say this not meaning anything written, i mean it as anything you've put your heart behind. A term paper that you did because you needed to doesn't count, but one that you fell in love with the subject matter does.

**Two books that explains this very well (and are great books besides that) are Madeleine L'Engle's "Walking on Water" and Chaim Potok's "My Name Is Asher Lev" (here it's about art, but it applies).

skynes
06-23-2006, 12:31 AM
But this isn't a novel or a paper we love we're talking about. This is God's Word to the nations... For some people this is ALL they have to know abut God.
If a novel isn't 100% perfect, so what.
If a paper doesn't quite meet the mark, it can still skim a pass.

I doubt God will want His Word to skim that pass-rate.

Is God really the kind to take the risk of letting humans do it themselves? More than likely cause a Chinese Whispers effect and end up with a totally different story saying totally different things to what God intended?

Or would He Himself guarantee that what was written was EXACTLY what He wanted to the very letter, and protect it, so that even now 2000 years after Jesus' death we're looking at the same letters and prophesies that those of the day read and believe.

amodman
06-23-2006, 03:26 PM
A problem, IMO, with Christianity, is that we have this (as the title says) pollarized viewpoint of either it's "inspired" or it's not. Jewish traditions claims that there are "levels of inspiration," and this idea is far older than "the church." The torah, they'd consider as the direct word of God to man, no higher level than that (this inclueds Christ's words, as well, as everyone here obviusly believes he was the Messiah). Following next might be the prophets, later on maybe Paul's epistles, etc. etc. Not ALL of it is God's direct word to man. In fact, very little of it is. And how much of that word was included in the message dictates what "level" of inspiration the writing would be on.

However, even for God's direct word to man, that word was given to man. It's our charge to protect it (as I've said), and we're fallible. You literally can NOT argue that the torah, the prophets, and the NT appears word for word in today's English Bible's as it did when it was written. You just need to pick up any two different versions of the English Bible to see that, or observe the many hot debates that theologians often have over how certain things aren't being translated or interpreted correctly. But it's better than nothing. We have the "jist," and, more likely than not, the majority of what was written. But that doesn't mean there can't be mistakes, incongruencies, etc. The flaws are not that massive, usually, and generally would only add to our understanding of the message, rather than the message itself.

I do believe that God would "risk" letting humans manage this stuff themselves. He's pretty much been doing it since the beginning of time with the exception of his chosen people. That's part of WHY the Messiah was sent. The Jews were mussin' up in their responsibilities. Why do you think Christ said he came for the Jews first. I also believe, however, that though we may not have dong a bang-up picture perfect job protecting God's word, plenty of Spirit-filled men and women have been on the case long enough that we can trust it. It's not like we lack original or nearly original copies of texts. If you'd like to check it all out for yourself, learn Hebrew/Aramaic and have at it. That's the beauty of the English Bible (and others), people made things "more convenient" for the world. Don't mean those people were perfect.

skynes
06-26-2006, 12:41 AM
I do believe that God would "risk" letting humans manage this stuff themselves.

And as you know, I don't. People WILL screw it up, no matter how Spirit-filled a person may be.
If God doesn't look after it, then what we have is totally unreliable, we cannot be sure of anything in it.

I do greatly doubt that God would let His word to the nations become corrupt and twisted.

and this idea is far older than "the church."

So? It's older... Doesn't mean it's right.

Earth being flat is an old idea, brain pumping blood around your body is an old idea, bleeding people to get rid of illness is an old idea. They were all wrong.

Answer me this:

How can the word of God be suffice to make a man complete for every good work, if the word of God isn't complete itself?

amodman
06-26-2006, 01:54 AM
How can the word of God be suffice to make a man complete for every good work, if the word of God isn't complete itself?

I honestly don't even know what you're asking me. I don't believe there is a "complete" word of God. We simply have a collection of many of the historical standouts, as well as some of the staples, known as the Bible. A collection of everything from God to man from the beginning of time would be...well, massive. One of those thought excercises of how many times would the pages circle the Earth sort of thing. But we don't need all that.

God's basic word, and all one really needs to know, is that his Son died for us so that we could receive Him, and that he loves us. The Spirit can lead you the rest of the way, if you believe. Everything else is for our benefit. It adds to our understanding of who God is and how he would have us lead our lives. I've already stated that I don't even believe that that ends with the Bible. It just starts there. There's leagues of this sort of stuff you could study and read. But one can only spend so much of their lives doing that. They have to go out there and live it for Him at some point.

We will never be complete, nor will we ever fully comprehend God (or at least, be at peace about our comprehension), until the day we die. It's pointless to try and attempt that. But the more we can improve ourselves, the more we can live a life un-wasted for Him.

p.s. As for the levels of inspiration, honestly, are you telling me we should just throw out the theology come to us from 1,000's of years of spirit filled men in ancient Israel and beyond, including the prophets of the Old Testament themselves, because it's not "New Testament Theology?" That irks me to no end. No End! God is the same today as he was yesterday and as he will be a 1,000 years from now. Forgive me if I don't find the ideas and teachings of men who have been following after Yaweh since the beginning of time as in-consequential to the modern day Christian.

edit: And, not that it much matters to the conversation really, but each of your stated examples has always had it's detractors. As early as 500 B.C. Aristotle reasoned that the Earth was round, which was a Scientifically accepted fact since by any and all of the truly educated (and most historians agree that the belief probably goes back much further, but that Aristotle's proof was simply the most well-known/recorded), and those ideas about the body were only ever held to by a few groups of people, others thinking them deathly wrong. There are, of course, several other viable scientific ideas that could be used as examples of things once believed but now not, but those "examples" sitting there with no context at all simply irked me.

skynes
06-26-2006, 07:29 AM
p.s. As for the levels of inspiration, honestly, are you telling me we should just throw out the theology come to us from 1,000's of years of spirit filled men in ancient Israel and beyond, including the prophets of the Old Testament themselves, because it's not "New Testament Theology?" That irks me to no end. No End! God is the same today as he was yesterday and as he will be a 1,000 years from now. Forgive me if I don't find the ideas and teachings of men who have been following after Yaweh since the beginning of time as in-consequential to the modern day Christian.

No I'm not. I'm saying that whether it was the direct word of God or the prophets makes no difference, both are divinely inspired writings, both are incredibly valuable and both Paul said are involved in making the man of God complete for every good work.

I honestly don't even know what you're asking me. I don't believe there is a "complete" word of God. We simply have a collection of many of the historical standouts, as well as some of the staples, known as the Bible.

So when Paul said 2 Tim 3:16-17

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. "

He was lying?

amodman
06-26-2006, 10:12 AM
So when Paul said 2 Tim 3:16-17

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. "

He was lying?

S'Funny, because I'd much rather like to know to what "Scripture" he is referring. I very much doubt that, at the time, he considered his own letters "Scripture." In fact, I'd imagine he was referring to the Torah and the prophets. Perhaps you shoul refer to the verse previous (15), for clarification. -

"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."

Sounds to me like the Law and Prophets, when he's speaking to a Jewish man raised on such material which guide you in what sort of life God expects you to lead.

skynes
06-27-2006, 12:15 AM
Question: If I decided that instead of using the Bible, I was going to use, say, the writings of C.S. Lewis in my daily life, do devotions and studies upon them, pray and meditate upon it, write sermons on it and it alone.

Essentially treat it as others do the Bible.

Would there be a problem with that?

amodman
06-27-2006, 11:51 AM
Question: If I decided that instead of using the Bible, I was going to use, say, the writings of C.S. Lewis in my daily life, do devotions and studies upon them, pray and meditate upon it, write sermons on it and it alone.

Essentially treat it as others do the Bible.

Would there be a problem with that?

If you honestly believed that the writings of C.S. Lewis were soundly inspired and on level with, say, Paul's epistles, then there would only be a problem in my eyes (on that view) if it were to be at the exlusion (as in, you only believed in his writings and not Paul's, though one could, I suppose, have some sort of an argument against Paul's if they wished...though I can't imagine what it would be) of everything else we believe as "inspired." Of course, you don't HAVE to read it all. Because, essentially, all that is really "extra." The direct word of God, aka the Torah and the Messiah, are the only things that you must acknowledge if you actually believe in Him, though you should still be critical of it's presentation to you.

skynes
06-27-2006, 02:37 PM
If you honestly believed that the writings of C.S. Lewis were soundly inspired and on level with, say, Paul's epistles, then there would only be a problem in my eyes (on that view) if it were to be at the exlusion (as in, you only believed in his writings and not Paul's, though one could, I suppose, have some sort of an argument against Paul's if they wished...though I can't imagine what it would be) of everything else we believe as "inspired." Of course, you don't HAVE to read it all. Because, essentially, all that is really "extra." The direct word of God, aka the Torah and the Messiah, are the only things that you must acknowledge if you actually believe in Him, though you should still be critical of it's presentation to you.

Dude... my head can only implode once normally.

You made it implode 3 times in 17 different dimensions.

That's the Skynes way of saying - What the hell?

amodman
06-27-2006, 04:01 PM
Dude... my head can only implode once normally.

You made it implode 3 times in 17 different dimensions.

That's the Skynes way of saying - What the hell?

Technically, I never said I believe that C.S. Lewis's writings are on par with Paul's, but simply discussed under the assumption that they were. I haven't read nor prayed about for that matter much of Lewis's stuff, so I can't really speak for how "inspired" it is. I already said that a truly spirit filled and led person today has just as much potential to write something from God as anyon did 2,000+ years ago.

edit: I should add, though, that it would take some pretty heavy arguments for me to soundly believe something as "recent" even as Lewis's writings is on par with Paul's. These things take time to be able to criticized and come to conclusions about by similarly spirit-filled people reading and meditating on the works. Also, Paul had an advantage. He interacted with Christ, but the prophets didn't (Well, in visions...).

skynes
06-28-2006, 12:28 AM
You missed my point... which was this:

If I decided to use another piece of Christian writing like most people do the Bible, is there a problem with that? If so why? If not, why?

C.S Lewis was just an example.

What difference does time make anyway? Why couldn't you take one of my blogs on Myspace and make it a new book of the Bible? God was involved in the writing of every one of them, so why can't people consider it scripture?

amodman
06-28-2006, 09:21 AM
You missed my point... which was this:

If I decided to use another piece of Christian writing like most people do the Bible, is there a problem with that? If so why? If not, why?

C.S Lewis was just an example.

What difference does time make anyway? Why couldn't you take one of my blogs on Myspace and make it a new book of the Bible? God was involved in the writing of every one of them, so why can't people consider it scripture?

Do I really have to repeat myself? I didn't say ANY work can be considered "Scripture." And in fact I believe there are different levels of how "inspired" something called "Scripture" can be. If something you wrote truly and completely stood up to the tests of whether or not it was actually from God, which in turn would mean it was actually RIGHT in all respects, and the material you wrote was actually viable enough for anybody to want or need to use, then, yes, it could eventually be considered something from God that is to be studied if one desires. Though not everything that meets this criterion is still always quite at the level of the things found in the Bible. Some things (nay, many things) are quite intended for the here and the now and for a specific audience. Though, dare I say it, you might at least have the faintest clue now that your writings would be meaningful on that scale at all.

Maybe I should ask you a question, why wouldn't you, were you to be spirit filled and on fire for God, have just as much potential to write something inspired by him for generations to come as anyone else who has? Is there anything stopping that fact other than that you aren't? Do you even know that? These generally aren't questions we ask ourselves...we just try and live for God as best we can and see how things go. Granted, you aren't going to be writing down the next Torah, but you could be the next prophet.

skynes
06-28-2006, 11:46 AM
When it says in the end of Revelations that any who add to this book of prophesy shall suffer the plagues and any who take away shall have their part torn from the book of life.

I believe that to apply to all of scripture, not just revelations, since all of the bible contains prophesy in one way or another. you can call the Bible a 'book of prophesy'

So I don't think what I do could add to it because nothing is supposed to add to it.

Another thing I dont think that being on fire for God has anything to do with scripture.
Most of the Bible authors were no different from us today.

md4j
06-28-2006, 01:28 PM
For example, the Church of Latter Day Saints, they claim Jesus Christ existed! That is a true statement, but the notion that God has siblings is complete and utter bullcrap! So you can't use the concept "either the whole mormon bible is true, or it is all false" because I just gave contradicting statements for both.So mary remained a virgin her entire life?

unshakeable15
06-28-2006, 05:07 PM
Is God really the kind to take the risk of letting humans do it themselves? More than likely cause a Chinese Whispers effect and end up with a totally different story saying totally different things to what God intended?

Or would He Himself guarantee that what was written was EXACTLY what He wanted to the very letter, and protect it, so that even now 2000 years after Jesus' death we're looking at the same letters and prophesies that those of the day read and believe.
Strange, but i think God does both. He entrusts man to things of Heaven, but he also knows we aren't perfect and will fail, so he is there to back us up when we do.

The PERFECT example is the church. He had 12 guys follow him around for 3 years in hopes that they would preach the message he had to give and help redeem mankind. One of the 12 committed suicide after turning him in to the Romans and Jewish leaders, another (one of his inner sanctum and who Jesus said was one he would give the responsibility of the church) denied he even knew him hours before his death. He trusted these faulty men to lead the world to his side.

He trust us to do things today that i wouldn't trust myself with (i.e. talking to friends about God, feeding a homeless man on the corner, all around making a change in the world around us for the better...), yet he continues to put his faith in us.

Scott, to take that verse in Revelation that says "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book" (22:18) to refer to more than just the revelation John received on Patmos is to infer that John knew his writing would be included in an omnibus edition of writings, including the Torah and Paul's letters! i'm not saying that fact couldn't be revealed to him, but God isn't one who reveals the future for parlor tricks; he does it with intention. i see no point to giving John this tidbit. Ergo, John would not know his letter would go included with the works of others, so his warning would also not go towards those other works.

(note: the above paragraph hinges on the phrase "of this book." If that phrase is different in the original writing, it would affect the rest of my statement.)

skynes
06-29-2006, 10:41 AM
Scott, to take that verse in Revelation that says "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book" (22:1 to refer to more than just the revelation John received on Patmos is to infer that John knew his writing would be included in an omnibus edition of writings, including the Torah and Paul's letters! i'm not saying that fact couldn't be revealed to him, but God isn't one who reveals the future for parlor tricks; he does it with intention. i see no point to giving John this tidbit. Ergo, John would not know his letter would go included with the works of others, so his warning would also not go towards those other works.


John didn't need to know, only God needed to know.

unshakeable15
07-01-2006, 09:54 PM
So i ask you this? Why did God choose John or Peter or Hezekiah to write down what they did? If they were just puppets through which God's hand could write, what makes them so special? Why do we look up to Paul if Jeremy from Hoboken, Wisconsin could have written down what God told him to?

i say this because it sounds to me like you're saying the authors of the books added nothing to the work they were writing, and that is something i cannot accept. If nothing else, they have varying styles (something you cannot deny), and style doesn't come through in just word choice, but how you say things, how things are put together (this word before that, instead of the other way around), which also dictates what you are trying to say. Or, to put it another way, because i feel strongly about something, what i write will be tinted with that, even if i do my best to write impartially.

skynes
07-03-2006, 12:15 AM
I'm going to be taking some Leave from this thread for a while.

It's screwing with my head and being used to spiritually attack me (No, not by Board members)... Which I can obviously live without.

Zero_Punk900
07-03-2006, 09:14 PM
So mary remained a virgin her entire life?

well we know that's not true. the bible even talks about jesus' brothers and sisters.

Luke 8:19 (New International Version)

19Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd.

John 7:3 (New International Version)

3Jesus' brothers said to him, "You ought to leave here and go to Judea, so that your disciples may see the miracles you do.



Just showing that Jesus had brothers.


But to move back to the topic of this thread. I once heard a teacher of mine say that God protected the original manuscripts as they were copied in the original languages. But he also said that some may argue that God did not necessarily protect them as they were translated. We do not have the originals, but we have so many more copies closer to when the actual events happened even than things like Homer and all that. Those are accepted as being just like the original, plus you can definitely figure out the difference. And by looking at all the copies of the Bible even within a few hundred years and only in the original languages it's found that they're like 99.5% accurate to each other and the differences are like punctuation.* Either way our stuff is so close to the originals, and the reason why some things didn't make it in and others did is because the ones we have were the ones that were accepted in the early church and used in teaching.



what makes peter or john, or hezekiah so special? why were they chosen? I can't explain why choosing certain people, but each person brings in his own perpective, adds a little more to the story. i remember my pastor talking once about can we trust the bible because of stories that don't mesh together in books. he used an example that worked here really well since we just got a new baseball stadium. he talked about how in the newspaper you'd read about how it was amazing at opening day and everyone was happy and you could see from anywhere. then he talked about how in other stories about the same day you'd hear from a drunk guy who was enraged or how you couldn't see from standing room only areas sometimes. he said that really it's just more pieces of the story that help you understand the full thing. maybe one perpective showed one thing, but another perspective gives you more insight on this other part. they closed what went into the bible when they decided what went into the canon, but the story is still going on. it's just not added into the bible. i'd like to be able to explain more, but i'd like to talk about this with some people who understand it much more than i do, like my pastors. i do find it interesting, but the best way to put all of it is that we don't understand God, nor will we ever understand all of him. our brains are too small. he does things the way he wants them, and if he truly is all powerful, i think he can protect his book and have his hand on what he wants to go in it.


-ZP


*i may have my facts a little mixed up here, but I'm gonna go back and check what my pastor said in one of his sermons last month. i'll check the podcast and let you guys know if i got it right or what he really said.

alorian
07-04-2006, 12:29 AM
Common sense dictates that the Bible was tampered with, changed, rephrased, added to, taken from, etc.

The holy spirit tells me that it is all true.

skynes
09-03-2006, 10:36 PM
Graaaaavediggggeeerrrr..... lol

Don't worry I have something good to add.

In the end of Revelation, where it's written that whoever adds or takes away from the things written in this book blah de blah etc.

The word book is the word 'Biblos' you know the word we derive Bible from.
It means book or books.

If it was Biblion it could also mean scroll or writing. But it isn't. It's specifically the word for Book.

Think it meant something more than just Revelation then? (which was a letter, not a book.)

Gryphenix
09-04-2006, 05:59 PM
When Christians start to question the infallibility of the Bible, it worries me, for several reasons, but first, another 3:16 verse:
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2 Timothy 3:17 that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work.
The Bible says it right here. Now of course, you can question whether or not this verse was divinely inspired, but it is still what the Bible says. When the Bible's inspiration is questioned, it allows for too many loopholes. The gay church does this all the time, conveniently choosing to say that scripture that condemns the gay lifetyle are misinterpreted or uninspired. It becomes easy to make the Bible fit you instead of trying lo live according to it.
Now, I am not saying people cannot hear from God on a personal level apart from the Bible, but anyhting we believe we hear has to have an acid test. Otherwise, we will listen to the wrong voice.
As far as the Maccabees and other texts from the Apochrypha, I have read some of them. They are mainly Jewish history. The Bible is the story of Christ, from beginning to end. These books do not fit in that story, but are imporatnt for historical reasons.

NightCrawler
09-11-2006, 11:06 AM
When Christians start to question the infallibility of the Bible, it worries me, for several reasons, but first, another 3:16 verse:
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2 Timothy 3:17 that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work.
The Bible says it right here. Now of course, you can question whether or not this verse was divinely inspired, but it is still what the Bible says. When the Bible's inspiration is questioned, it allows for too many loopholes. The gay church does this all the time, conveniently choosing to say that scripture that condemns the gay lifetyle are misinterpreted or uninspired. It becomes easy to make the Bible fit you instead of trying lo live according to it.
Now, I am not saying people cannot hear from God on a personal level apart from the Bible, but anyhting we believe we hear has to have an acid test. Otherwise, we will listen to the wrong voice.
As far as the Maccabees and other texts from the Apochrypha, I have read some of them. They are mainly Jewish history. The Bible is the story of Christ, from beginning to end. These books do not fit in that story, but are imporatnt for historical reasons.
Mind if I barge in?

We already discussed the passages you pointed out. Go back and read the thread.

Everything else you said seemed to me like irrelevant fluff, except pointing out the difference between Jewish history and Christ's story. Now, why do you say that God's miracles wouldn't be part of Christ's story? (as the first and second books of Maccabee's account)

Gryphenix
09-11-2006, 12:17 PM
Mind if I barge in?

We already discussed the passages you pointed out. Go back and read the thread.

Everything else you said seemed to me like irrelevant fluff, except pointing out the difference between Jewish history and Christ's story. Now, why do you say that God's miracles wouldn't be part of Christ's story? (as the first and second books of Maccabee's account)

Wow, way to respond in an angry and sarcastic manner. Lets try to be civil, shall we. First, I did read the thread. I must have missed that discussion. Second, to your question, Christ's story is about the redemption of mankind. Macabees, from what I can tell, has very little to do with this. It is about Jerusalem being under foreign powers, who defile it, and who are evntually removed, leading to the Hebrews holding the city. It has nothing to do with the Jews waiting fro or longing for Messiah. That is the point of Christ.
Now, please tell me how the twisitng of scripture to fit one's sinful lifestyle is "irrelevant fluff."

Gryphenix
09-11-2006, 12:25 PM
Also, as far as the Timothy reference, the main thing I was looking at was the phrase "All Scripture is God breathed." It does not say some of the Bible, with which Paul was intimately familiar, but ALL.

NightCrawler
09-13-2006, 09:01 AM
Yo, no anger... and show me a single sarcastic sentence. I was just blunt and perhaps lacking discretion if anything.

Anyway, what we discussed (or at least what I had raised) was that when Paul wrote to Timothy... he consciously believe his letters were part of the Bible, or considered of the level of 'Scriptures' ... so in the context of the passage, he was not saying over half of the NT is Scripture.

Instead, hundreds of years later... people grouped together and canonized his letters. So essentially, Paul is not claiming his letters are all "God breathed" and beneficial for instruction and rebuking and such.

However, we do. And I believe they are. But to reference that verse to present the idea is just plain illogical, irrelevant, and out of context. So, I just warn people... Don't use that passage to claim that the Bible we have (OT -- which is what Paul was talking about, and NT -- which he wasn't) is ALL Scripture. Because Paul didn't say that.

skynes
09-13-2006, 10:45 AM
Even though Paul may not have believed his letters to be scripture (which there is no evidence for or against), Pauls intentions are irrelevant here.

If all scripture is God inspired then that would include anything Paul has written whose inspiration was of God.

I say Paul's intentions are irrelevant, because it's God who chooses what He does and does not inspire and if He inspired Paul's letter to Timothy, then that is scripture and everything Paul wrote concerning scripture will apply to it.

unshakeable15
09-19-2006, 06:11 PM
Well, yes. And, no.

Paul's intentions do matter. After the fact, we can claim that verse to encompass Scripture, yes, because it is included within our canon. However, when Paul wrote it, he was using the word "Scripture" to describe the Law and the Prophets of, what we call, the Old Testament, the Old Covenant.

Saying his intentions are irrelevant is only half correct. Of course, God can use what you say or do, despite your worst intentions (i.e. selfishly not allowing your sister to go to the park because you don't want to take her there, but then finding out there was a sniper at the park killing people). But at the same time, we need to keep in mind Paul's intentions because without them, it's an incomplete picture (i.e. using the example above, it would appear you were a selfless child, protecting your sister, unless you look at the intentions as well).

Therefore, we can call Paul's letters Scripture and therefore God-breathed. However, that means, when using that verse, we should be careful to not make statements such as this one:
If all scripture is God inspired then that would include anything Paul has written whose inspiration was of God.
That's implying that anything God-breathed is Scripture. Which means that work's such as C.S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia are Scripture because because God is in them, or that letter you wrote to encourage your friend who was depressed is Scripture.*


*Each of these examples depends upon what you view as "God-breathed." The first dictates that God-breathed means God can be found in the work and it tells of his glory, even if it wasn't meant to anything more than a story. The second dictates that anything written by God's prompting for the edification of others is a God-breathed work.

skynes
09-20-2006, 02:06 AM
God-breathed = greek word Logos.
That every aspect of it is God, the thoughts, the intentions, the words, the actions. Every single tiniest dot originates with God.

That's how I view God-breathed. That there is spiritual LIFE in it. The same way God breathed to bring Adam to life, so His breath makes His Word a Living Word.

The writings of C.S. Lewis may be inspired by God, the idea starting with God. But God-inspired and God-breathed are two vastly different concepts.

unshakeable15
09-25-2006, 01:40 PM
Then again we come to the point this whole thread has swung around many times.

You claim there is a difference between God-breathed and God-inspired (i would probably argue that it's degrees of inspiration, with God-breathed being the most fully inspired). God-breathed, what i gather you are saying (correct me if i get it wrong), is word-for-word what God wanted us to recieve. Not just the original copy of the letters and prophecies and such, but what we have today.

How does that take into consideration author's intent? Paul wrote Philemon in hopes persuading Phil's former master of not killing him now that he'd become a follower of Christ. Luke wanted to put forth an accurate record of Christ's doings (the other Gospel writers had no such qualms of accuracy, even to the point of fudging events around a bit). Song of Solomon was written as a love poem from Solomon to (one of) his bride(s). They each speak beyond the original intent (but i could argue that any written work worth its merit does the same).

Yet, while still speaking beyond their original intent, they have infused their writings with their designs. Would God not have cleansed those out of them if they only wanted Paul to write of forgiveness, or had all the Gospel authors aim toward's accuracy, or make known Song was a picture of God and Israel (or Christ and Church)?

skynes
09-26-2006, 03:21 AM
You claim there is a difference between God-breathed and God-inspired (i would probably argue that it's degrees of inspiration, with God-breathed being the most fully inspired). God-breathed, what i gather you are saying (correct me if i get it wrong), is word-for-word what God wanted us to recieve. Not just the original copy of the letters and prophecies and such, but what we have today.

Not quite. not just word-for-word. but every single aspect of it, the thoughts of it, the desires behind it, the intentions of it. Everything that generated the thoughts to write it, every word written down and everything that came from those words.


Yet, while still speaking beyond their original intent, they have infused their writings with their designs. Would God not have cleansed those out of them if they only wanted Paul to write of forgiveness, or had all the Gospel authors aim toward's accuracy, or make known Song was a picture of God and Israel (or Christ and Church)?


<Not english major = no clue about the details of writing.>

Are you trying to say that each book has bits of the writers personality and intentions in them? And that if it was God breathed 100% He would have removed all those aspects of them?

unshakeable15
09-28-2006, 11:44 AM
There is no way you can write without putting who you are into what you write (unless maybe you are writing something technical, like directions on how to install a game onto your computer). How you form your sentences, what words you use, the order you use them, all come to play and not only display author's style and voice and character, but also point to the author's bias (for example, i write in triples: read back that last sentence for two examples).

To say God-breathed was for God to insert the author's intentions into the author's brain seems a bit Calvinistic to me. At best, i'd be willing to be that God chose certain people to write certain books, knowing what twist they would take on it. For example, Luke, being a doctor, was more precise than the other Gospels. But to say God made him a doctor just for the sake of authoring the book is over the top.

NightCrawler
09-28-2006, 06:58 PM
Well, I think that everything has a purpose, usually more than we can notice. To say that Luke was made a doctor and happened to write it seems ludicrous. But on the flip side, it is ludicrous to suggest that it was "just" (as an implication that it was only) to write it.

skynes
09-28-2006, 10:46 PM
There is no way you can write without putting who you are into what you write (unless maybe you are writing something technical, like directions on how to install a game onto your computer). How you form your sentences, what words you use, the order you use them, all come to play and not only display author's style and voice and character, but also point to the author's bias (for example, i write in triples: read back that last sentence for two examples).

To say God-breathed was for God to insert the author's intentions into the author's brain seems a bit Calvinistic to me. At best, i'd be willing to be that God chose certain people to write certain books, knowing what twist they would take on it. For example, Luke, being a doctor, was more precise than the other Gospels. But to say God made him a doctor just for the sake of authoring the book is over the top.

On the first bit - yeah I know... but does it being God-breathed mean God would have to remove the individualism?

I'm more inclined to go with God picking them to write it cause He knew the outcome of them writing it and it's what he wanted.