Is the Bible inspired by God?

quote:

---

?Alternative readings: ?
1. "Every scripture inspired by God ..." [footnote: Revised Standard Version]
2. "Every inspired scripture ..." ?[New English Bible]
3. "The whole Bible ..." [Living Bible]
The first two alternatives are OK but will require someone to decide which of the scriptures are inspired, or which are inspired by God.

---

There are two primary Greek texts from which nearly all, if not all of New Testament translations are taken. There is the Alexandrian, also known as the Egyptian and/or neutral text. It used some older Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus manuscripts. Some major translations taken from it were the 1901 Standard Version as well as later revised versions and more recently the NIV Version, the old unpopular 1901 Standard being the most literally/acurately translated of any versions from this text.Then there's the Received or Byzantine text from which the King James and some other translations were translated.The two Greek source texts are about 85% textually exact, with the majority of the differences being insignificant nondoctrinal words or rephrasing of the same wording.Of your above three versions, #1 is more liberal than the 1901 Standard, #2 is very liberal/nonliteral to the text and #3 is so far out that most Biblical findies such as myself believe it should not be called a Bible, but a Bible commentary.So to respond to your propositon, none of the above are literally inspired of God. In fact, we have no absolute originals. The fact that the existing manuscripts are so close lends reason to believe that the originals were very close to what they are. The problem is that translators tend to think the need to be interpreters rather than sticking to the job of translating and letting the reader do the interpreting as led by the Holy Spirit. As the NIV was being translated back in the 70's I believe, I heard one of the translators of that version speak. One statement he made disturbed me which was to the effect that they as translators were'nt so much concerned about being literal as they were in conveying the message. Well, that sounds good, but they are assuming the role of the reader and preacher which is to decide what the literal words are saying. That is not to say the order of the words must be arranged by the translator so as to be readable and understood by the reader. The nearest English equivolent to the Greed words should be used inasmuch as is possible in our case, for the English language. That's why I keep a Greek-English Interlinear at hand to keep whatever translation I am using honest. Personally my favorite is the ole 1901 American Standard, so unpopular that they're not that easy to find. It's the closest to my interlinear.Likely Paul was speaking of all the sacred writings of the Jewish scriptures including the prophets in his statement you have cited as being inspired of God. The Christian compilers of the Bible cannon evidently thought so, though it took them some time to sort out which of the NT should be included. Bottom line is that Biblical literalist based nations are the prosperous and the blessed of the planet's cultures. To me that says something.

Hi Percy.1. Roman Catholics are not known for being Biblical fundamentalists. The immaculate conception, celibacy, indulgences, popes and priests as fathers, etc. all attest to that. Thus the difference in north of the border and south of the border (Mexico and south).2. If you used US standards of poverty for nations like Turkey and Hungary likely 80% of those would be in the poverty range. Also, the socialist nations you listed have most on par with an overall lower standard of living across the board than in America.3. The US is in a decline with the gap widening between the rich and the poor. This seems to correlate with the Biblical fundamentalist decline in the US so far as government, education and social life. The days of blessings of the Almighty and prosperity are historically true for out nation, but it appears we're loosing it, so yes, the poverty rate in America is on the rise, but your chart appears to be missleading.4. If your list were compiled during the days of oppressive communism, your list would have most communist European nations at the top of your list with practically no poverty, yet compared to Americans they would all be in poverty.

quote:

---

I agree with you about Roman Catholicism not any longer including Biblical inerrancy as a fundamental tenet, but this hasn't penetrated the rank-and-file adherents to any great extent, either in this country or Mexico.

---

There's always been a world of difference in the theology of the rank and file of adherents of Catholicism (especially in Mexico)to that of Biblical fundamentalists of the US. The difference isn't so much of the Bilical inerrancy as translated as it is in the doctrinal theology of the two which has translated into moral and social issues and practices.

quote:

---

I'm not sure why you think there is a fundamentalist decline in this country. Last data I saw had the conservative evangelical sects still growing.

---

You'd have to have been closly involved in the church as I have been for nearly 60 years to notice the steady decline, even in fundamentalistic circles which I am involved with. The decline has been in literal interpretation, morals and simple fundamentals like the Ten Commandments. The evangelical sects are growing but a lota hype and Penticostalistic hooplah with large rich churches, big programs and such but to heck with the fundamentals of the written word. Too many for the blessings of Christianity without accepting the responsibilities that are required to be approved and blessed of God. That's not to say there's not a lot of good churches and Christians out there, but the decline is telling.

quote:

---

About the days of communism, you would probably have ignored statistics from countries suspected of simply defining away the problem. Certainly if you compare standard of living instead of poverty rates they would have come out near the bottom.

---

But aren't you making my point? By the same token if the originators of your list had taken the standard of living rather than the local poverty rate into account, places like Turkey and Hungary certainly wouldn't have been rated way up there over the US. They would consider the standard of living of the majority of our poor to be quite good. The upper segment of our poor do not look poor and nobody would know they were such but the IRS and the grocery store where they turn in their food stamps. If I'm not mistaken the poverty level of earnings here is around $17,000.

quote:

---

Living standards more likely correlate with things like the presence of natural resources and the existence of a viable market economy. Plus there is data completely counter to your proposition, such as non-fundamentalist countries like Finland having higher standards of living than the US.

---

1. So why did the standard of living in the land of Palestine sky rocket in a few decades under Israel after centuries of wasteland under cultures of non-biblical origin and heritage?2. Finland has been traditionally relatively uncorrupted, having a strong Lutheran base with the Bible regarded as the highest authority for morality and society.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-21-2003]

Hi Crashfrog.Both Israel and the Scandinavian countries have a tradition of Biblical values, the Ten Commandments being the influential catalyst in their heritage. These values have been instilled in the culture so long that it shows even for a time after secularism increases. They are socialistic but still quite highly family oriented and moral from what I can gather. Same with the Swiss.Then too, nothing has been said about the Pagan, Communist, and Fundie Muslim nations, most of whom suffer a high poverty rate and low standard of living.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-21-2003]

Hi Schrafinator.

quote:

---

Like Crashfrog said...don't mostly Jews live in Israel? Are you saying that Jews are known for holding Fundamentalist Christian views?

---

Jewish scriptures including the Ten Commandments are every bit as important to the Fundie Christian as the NT, though the temple worship and Levitical sacrificial atonement had been replaced by a better testament.

quote:

---

Well, they were "corrupted" into Protestantism from the Roman Catholic Church before they were Lutheran. The same happened to Sweden, and many other Western countries.

---

Well then tell me this. Were they better off or worse off under Lutheranism?

quote:

---

Before that the local pagan and nature religions were "corrupted" to Catholocism.

---

{I'm gona do it. I can't resist) IMO they then jumped from the frying pan into the fire.

quote:

---

Also, I think you need to provide some serious evidence to back up your bold assertion that the Finns consider the Bible to be "the highest authority for morality and society" in the fundamentalist, Biblical literalist way you are using it.

---

I'm the challengee. Your're the challenger. It's your turn to put up. Notice I said, "traditionally." They like the good ole US of A are sliding the slippery slope of apostacy also. We, being corrupted by secularism and materialism amid our prosperity are headed for the greater fall.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-21-2003]

Hi db.

quote:

---

He quoted the Septuagint which Jews reject.
He quoted apocryphal books which Protestants reject.
He quoted Pagan poets (such heresy!).
Paul employed these scriptures as if they were inspired, utilizing them in circumstances which HE had designated appropriate to the use of inspired scripture.
Today's fundamentalists present a puzzling picture. On the one hand asserting Pauls words regarding inspiration, and on the other hand, rejecting much of the material he obviously accepted as inspired. Paul, and only Paul, was bold enough to assert such a revolutionary sentiment; namely, that everthing written is inspired by God. But then Paul was very impressed with literary talent.

---

II Corinthians 11:15 Paul warns of Satans ministers and in I Timothy 4:1 he warns of those who would teach "doctrines of demons," forbidding to marry, abstaining from meats, etc. He, Jesus and most of the apostles warned of those who would teach false doctrines and an exclusive Christianity as the only way to God and eternal life. Would you mind citing the passages where he quoted or rejected the scriptures you designated and where he quoted paganism?

quote:

---

Yes, and "them" were Roman Catholic scholars weren't they?!

---

Some were. As I said to someone else, the problem with RC was not their scriptures. It was their neglect and corruption of them by their doctrines. That's why during the dark ages the popes and bishops kept the scriptures to themselves and forbad the laity to use and interpret them for themselves.

quote:

---

It says something to me too. It says you are dreaming.
Is Japan not prosperous?

---

Yah thanks to Yankee Doodle.

quote:

---

Are Chinese jobs going overseas?

---

Yah, to the Chinese slavishly impoverished sweat shops. [/quote] Is the Swiss economy in trouble?[/quote]Traditionally its been the world's most stable culture, thanks to it's Biblical heritage.

quote:

---

Furthermore, the people of Israel never achieved the standard of living enjoyed by citizens of the empires which ran them over. One might safely assume that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were fundamentalists who took the Word of God literally. Yes?

---

Israel enjoyed the good life and prosperity so long as they followed and obeyed the precepts of their scriptures. Whenever they broke from that, God brought punishment, poverty and peril. As prophesied, they are now back in their land, prospering providentially so as to establish a Zionistic soon. Little do they realize that the coming king/messiah they've so long awaited will be the the one who rode into Jerusalem on a lowly burrow two milleniums ago to present himself as king/messiah, whom they so ignorantly rejected. This time around it will be different.

Rather than plow through all the rhetoric about how fundamentally Biblical this and that country are, I'll summarize my statements by the following:1. By and large, the nations of higher standard are those of a Biblical based ancestory whether it be of the OT or of both the OT and NT. That is not to say all are. There are some exceptions. In many of these nations secularism has prevailed in recent decades, but a measure of morality and some Biblical values are instilled in the culture nevertheless.2. Take my statements for what they're worth. I simply don't have time to get into documenting every little thing I say as I seem to be expected to do and others are not.3. If this is going to emerge into another lecture session on how poorly I'm performing, I'm done with this thread.