Biblical Inspiration (DocB?)

Several months ago, DocB started a thread titled "Is the Bible Inspired by God"http://EvC Forum: Is the Bible inspired by God? -->EvC Forum: Is the Bible inspired by God?It was closed as being terminally off topic.I continue to read literalist posters citing 2 Tim 3:16 and making claims such as Jazzlover did here:
http://EvC Forum: Re-enactments of the Noah's Ark voyage? -->EvC Forum: Re-enactments of the Noah's Ark voyage? I would like to have some discussion of DocBill's first post, (especially in light of claims like the above) as I think it puts a quite a different spin on the reading of the bible.------------------
Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

I'll comment.First of all, those who believe things like you quote from Jazzlover live their lives dodging facts like they're land mines. In a sense, they are land mines. Dozens, hundreds, or thousands of facts lay around ready to be discovered that blow beliefs like Jazzlover's to bits.For example, Dr. Bill's post mentions the Septuagint. Most of the early Christians believed that the Septuagint was inspired. The story was that Ptolemy of Egypt put 70 Jewish scholars in 70 different rooms, and they all came up with a matching (word for word) Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. Thus "The Septuagint" for "the 70." It's also called the LXX.The book of Jeremiah in the LXX differs from the currently "inspired" Masoretic text by seven chapters. Yes, seven chapters are completely different.This is a problem which literalists deal with by ignoring it. But it gets better.Septuagint or Masoretic? Which is right? The Dead Sea Scrolls come to the rescue. It turns out that the Dead Sea Scrolls have a scroll of Isaiah. And it agrees with the Masoretic! Yeah, the modern literalists are right! (Let's not mention that means that the whole church of the second century believed in a false inspired Bible. In fact, Justin Martyr--AD 150--said the reading of Isaiah 7:14 that's currently used in the Masoretic text was added by evil Jews who didn't want the text to say "virgin," as the LXX has it.)But a couple years later, about fifty years ago, word got out that, oops, the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah really doesn't back up the Masoretic. It doesn't back up the LXX, either. It represents a third text type.The answer for literalists? Ignore this, and continue telling each other lies for fifty years, pretending that the Dead Sea Scrolls backed up their sacred "original" text.Even more, it turns out there's also a Dead Sea Scroll of Jeremiah, and it backs up the LXX. The LXX/Masoretic differences in Isaiah are pretty minor compared to the seven chapter difference in Jeremiah.Ah, well, who cares about information.Of course, it's also true that not everyone agrees that Genesis says there is a global flood. The Hebrew there could mean land or world, either one. My assumption would be that the ancient Hebrews pictured the flood of Noah as global, but they didn't have access to much of the world to have any idea if it was global.Finally, I can offer a completely different interpretation of 2 Tim 3:16. Give me a paragraph to provide the setting.We had an interesting experience involving the start of a church in Bethel Springs, TN. The experience happened at Standing Stone national park, where God poured out his Spirit on us in a pretty tremendous way. (Atheists here, please excuse my belief. That's my view of what happened.)Back in Genesis Jacob was on his way to his uncle's when he had a dream of heaven and earth touching by a ladder. He woke up, stood his stone pillow up (Standing Stone National Park), poured oil on it (outpouring of the Spirit), and called the place Bethel (Bethel Springs). We were pretty amazed by the coincidences involved, and, of course, we think it's because the Scriptures are "inspired" or "God-breathed." God knows all things in advance, and there are things in the Scripture that are alive, breathed into by God, and they are pertinent at all times in history, not just in their own.This interpretation is not threatened by the literalness or even the accuracy of the original story.Not that I'm pushing that interpretation. That interpretation goes with our whole world view and way of following God. It's pointless for anyone else to adopt it, but the literalist view of 2 Tim 3:16 that forces its believers to be dishonest and to hide their eyes from Truth when it shows up, has a lot of better competitors.

Before my comment I just want to say I am a believer in God, Christ and the Bible. So does this mean you think it could be possible that God would have the bible put together how he wants it? - I mean if he knows things in advance I'm sure he'll know which Isaiah is most correct, or which version of Jeremiah. Your quick to say of the literalist: But you then say; So if the Word is alive surely I can trust it literally because according to you it is alive "God breathed", but which Word are you talking about? a minute ago you were saying it has the wrong Isaiah version! - Do I ignore the book of Isaiah in the bible because Truthlover says there's another version? Are just some of the things said "God Breathed" - just exactly what parts can I read that are okay with you? - what parts do you think are God breathed?Or are you only interested in a scientifically proved version of the bible? - "an evo man pleaser" version, which will agree with all hardened Atheists.Personally I agree with some who say it's a book of faith rather than scientific facts, so why do you compromise any of it?[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-27-2003]

I'm afraid I didnt really understand your post. Are you a Believer or not? When you decided to believe God i think you are suppossed to do that: believe in God. There is no half way. Either youre in or out. You take Gods words as completely true or completely false. The landmines you speak of are historic unknows but when you believe completely and experience the power of god, youll know they are not spiritual.

No, they're not. They are things like the Dead Sea Scrolls NOT backing up the literalists Bible, but literalists TO THIS DAY repeating a fantasy to each other that they do. If it doesn't matter, then why are they lying to each other? Why don't they just admit that the Dead Sea Scrolls back up the LXX on Jeremiah and show a new text type for Isaiah?Those aren't unknowns. Those are knowns.Literalists have created a flood geology in which the flood sorted the fossils and created the layers of the earth. However, the layers of the earth and the sorting of the fossils look nothing like what the literalists require for their flood sorting.That's not an unknown, but a known.If someone told you a story about God repairing a dent in their car miraculously, then you went to their house and found the dent still there, why would you believe their story? That's not faith, that's insanity. The fact is, you accept facts every day of your life, or you can't live on this earth.The fact is, no worldwide flood, covering all the mountains of the earth, happened. Now you better figure out what to do about it, because if..."You take Gods words as completely true or completely false,"...then it's completely false. "Completely true" in the sense you mean it is impossible--there's a dent in the car, whether you like it or not.I'm going to give you one more answer, but I'll make a new post.

I'm a believer. The question is, what am I a believer in? Jesus said, "You will know a prophet by his fruits." Paul said, "My message does not come to you with mere words, but with power and demonstration of the Spirit."The demonstration I see from literalists is that they have no fruit. Overall, they live just like non-Christians. To quote literalist researcher George Barna, who is distressed by his own findings because he's a literalist:"of more than 70 other moral behaviors we study, when we compare Christians to non-Christians we rarely find substantial differences and we have no reason to believe co-habitation would veer from that pattern." (This was in response to a question on living together outside of marriage by Christians.)In other words, Barna chose 70 moral behaviors to study, and Christians and non-Christians lived no differently. You can go to Barna Group - Knowledge to navigate a changing world and see that this applies to literalists as much as to anyone.Biblical literalism does not produce the power of God! Look around, literalists get along with each other worse than almost anyone. They divide over some silly issue or another over and over and over!Where's this power of God you speak of? Where's this spiritualness you speak of? Where is the place that actually produces the promise Jesus spoke of, a vine (church) where every branch (member) produces fruit? Where is the place that can show the results Paul spoke of, that every person is growing spiritually until the day of Christ's return? Can you show me a church like that?I could show you one, but I'm afraid they're not literalist, and a pretty large percentage of its members believe in evolution. Yet they would all agree with your words that "there is no half way" and "either you're in or out."

No, you quit saying that the Bible is word for word literally the Word of God, because the fact is that there's another version of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and every other book in the Bible (if you're talking about word for word). Try the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia under "Septuagint" for that whole story of the Dead Sea Scrolls, lest you think I'm the only one saying it. It's available through any library or Christian bookstore. Most pastors probably have it.You asked, "Which Word are you talking about?" The same one Jesus and the apostles were talking about, but not the same one that the literalists talk about. Totally different.

He mentioned Moses didn't he?
Are you saying Jesus was against Moses? If you are I'd have to disagree. Are there other versions of Moses?
How can I know for sure about the other versions you are talking about? - My point is that things like the Ten Commandments - Jesus said follow, and the Ten Commandments are in the literal Bible. There might be other prophets that were true, that Jesus mentioned but didn't he also quote from Isaiah himself in the Synagogue?Are you saying Jesus would disagree with YEC's?Officially I am not really a YEC but - just a Christian (I'm too undecided) - and lack the scientific knowledge to honestly refute science. So the old earth is a possibility to me but right now I don't know why I should believe in evolution. But I don't doubt the Bible in any way, are you saying I should?What is so bad about taking it literally? - Are you saying Yeshua will not like me taking the Word literally, because he didn't?
Even though I am a Christian firstly rather than a YEC.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jazzlover_PR

​

You take Gods words as completely true or completely false.

---

Even as a certified skeptic, I can assure you that I would give extraordinary consideration to any words spoken by God. To this point, however, I have had only to consider the words of men.Namaste'Amlodhi

Mike,I want to reply. Time constraints. I'll get back to you tomorrow; late afternoon, probably.

Most definitely! I wasn't talking about the Bible at all, but about literalist interpretations of the Bible. Yes, I definitely think you should doubt them. It depends on what you mean by "literally." In the context Jazzlover was using it, it means the world was created in six 24-hour days, and there was a worldwide flood. Since, one, this didn't happen, and, two, their literal interpretation means there were days without a sun and a hardened dome over the earth that holds the sun and moon, with water above it, then what is so bad about taking it literally is that it means you believe things that aren't true and are, in fact, absurd. Yeshua would not like you taking the Bible literally, because it leads to close-mindedness, cruelty, and opposition to God. It led to those things in Yeshua's day, and it leads to the same today. In his day, literalist men tithed mint and cumin, but left widows to suffer. In our day, literalist men slander, insult, and accuse innocent scientists while producing none of the fruit Yeshua spoke of (see my Barna quote above).As for taking the Word literally, that's a different subject and not even a real legitimate question. If you take the Bible literally, you shouldn't equate it with the Word, anyway. "In the beginning, was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine."

The Flood | Answers in Genesis Help yourself

Souds like you are starting to judge everyone by a couple of bad examples. Fruits? I see mine everyday. Peace, love success in everything i do,give testimony of the living God in my conduct, etc. Live like non christians? Be more specific please. If this happens I guess they are not literalists or if not they would understand the same thing. This power is found in prayer and faith. People that give fruits are those that follow the counsel Jesus gave us. A persons spiritual growth is not up to the church but to the person itself. A good church is there to guide you, to help you on yor way, and to teach you. You are the one responsable for the desicion of praying and looking for gods precense every day. Every church has its memers that gow and has the ones that get stuck because of their own will of not following Jeusus advice.

Exactly. In genesis you can read that god divided the day into two parts: daytime and nighttime and that the union of these two phases make one complete day. How do we know that those days were literal days? Well i guess we still call a day a 24 hour period that has two phases:nighttime and daytime Wheres the difference? If you believe that taking this literally is absurd then obiously you dont believe in all mighty God that is truthfull but in a waek one thats a liar. To believe in a weak god thats a liar is more what i call absurd

What particular evidence from that site do you think has an relevance to the question? Could you pull some parts of it that solve the sorting problem?It's not my job to research your side of the argument. I'll read some if it is too much to quote here but you'll have to point to it at a more detailed level.------------------
Common sense isn't