Bible: Word of God or Not

I admit to confusion. In your posts to others, you seem to have no problem saying the Bible has relevancy. I have found nothing in what I have read to indicate that you are not a Christian, even though you could be advocating Christianity or the Bible as a possilbility from a non-partisan vantage point. I do not want to destroy the element of anonymity. It is vital to a point in a debate. But I do wonder, if you are a follower of the Bible, even as a product of man, do you interpret it in your own way and attempt to portray that here, or do you honestly think every christian should disregard all unpleasant references to damnation? And I know we all interpret it in our own ways, but generally speaking, christians believe in hell.The thing about war; I believe that plagues and diseases are also a punishment, but it is not important to the topic.

What many Christians do not see in the Bible is Original Sin or the concept that all are born damned or that salvation is reserved for Christians.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Given those two choices, I guess I "interpret it in my own way". With reference to the topic, I think the idea of eternal damnation is a wholly human invention. As "the word of God", it makes no sense.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

yes but the OT testament is filled with story after story, command after command that contravenes "the message" just as Honda says.

---

You are also confusing what God supposedly has the "government" or "army" do and what God expects from individuals on a day to day basis.Just as the United States Army cannot decide to attack another country on it's own, the Hebrews didn't attack other nations on their own. Our government decides if and when the army attacks. According to the Bible stories, God decides if and when to attack.Do you feel that the verses you provided are the point of the chapters or stories that they came from?This verse from Deuteronomy 22 is geared towards punishment of an individual and restitution, which happens after someone behaves improperly. It is not a verse on how to behave. This is what happens when someone doesn't behave correctly.That's why after you pointed out in Message 197: I stated in Message 204You are obviously unable to see the message that I see, but it doesn't negate the possibility that others can also see that message and that it can be a compelling reason for accepting the Bible as the word of God.You see the negative and therefore are not compelled to take the Bible as the word of God.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

No I am not confusing this. The fact is that these are individuals putting a women with child to the sword and reaping the young virgins not the "government". The critical question is why didn't god use his awesome powers to take care of these unrighteous wicked people?Why would the god that created galaxy clusters need assistance in committing genocide, unless there is some lesson here? And btw it must be an important message because the theme is repeated over and over. No the point of the chapters and stories are that it is history, legends and retold myths from a ethnocentric perspective - not Gods perspective. You missed the point entirely. This is not an application of the golden rule from the women's perspective.Notice the complete lack of concern for the woman in this passage. This is not a real punishment but just a business transaction. Ask any women you know if they would want to be forced to marry their rapists! I guess I am not clear what the "this" is in your reply. If you are referring to the "ethic of reciprocity" then you have to demonstrate where the ethical principle is exemplified in the OT or it is hardly compelling.For example, how many stories from the OT can you find demonstrating the application of the ethic of reciprocity where the "neighbor" is someone other than a male Hebrew? This is called in-group reciprocity and most primate groups exhibit similar behavior. I have shown several where it is not and there are many many more.Also Christianity is not unique in identifying this principle. To paraphrase first you have to have faith that the bible describes the supernatural God of the universe and then the bible is compelling. Sound like putting the cart in front of the horse.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

What is ambigious?Somewhat of a binary question "from God" or "not from God".I guess we could have a "sorta from God" or "tangently from God", but I would include that as "from God".As far as the messages, tales and morality plays I think that is clear from the context and preceding posts.

You are absolutely right! Whether we are riding the cart of faith, or the cart of disbelief, we are all putting the horse in front. I do not think we any of us truly have a ticket on the correct bus; we each see in the Bible a reflection of what we wanted to see to begin with.....

Really?If someone is inspired to write something, when they "Think" it may be God inspiring them, is that "from God?"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Most incorrect! I believe, but no offense, just not the fairy tale you believe.Further are you riding in the cart of disbelief of the god Jupiter?Are you riding in the cart of disbelief of the Muslim god Allah and Mohammad is his messenger?Are you riding in the cart of disbelief of the Hindu god Brahma?If so, why?If you put the cart before the horse so to speak you have taken the leap of faith approach into believing.Leap of faith - WikipediaStatistical evidence shows that those that take a leap of faith surprisingly leap into the faith of their fathers and the prevailing culture.

quote:

---

The fact is that these are individuals putting a women with child to the sword and reaping the young virgins not the "government".

---

An army is full of individuals, but they are ordered by the commander to kill the enemy. That's what these chapters are recording.That is not the message given to the individual in day to day living within the community.

quote:

---

You missed the point entirely. This is not an application of the golden rule from the women's perspective.

​

Notice the complete lack of concern for the woman in this passage. This is not a real punishment but just a business transaction. Ask any women you know if they would want to be forced to marry their rapists!

---

I understand your point, but I disagree with it. The verse deals with punishment and restitution. Different culture. If my husband dies, I don't want to marry my father in law either. Different culture. Today, no, it is a rotten solution, but in it's day, it may have been the best solution for the woman. I don't know. But that punishment is obviously not timeless as you have shown. But by continuing to think how we would want to be treated in that situation, the punishment and restitution for such an act has changed.So while the punishment has changed with our culture the idealic message is still around and helped to bring about that change.

quote:

---

For example, how many stories from the OT can you find demonstrating the application of the ethic of reciprocity where the "neighbor" is someone other than a male Hebrew? This is called in-group reciprocity and most primate groups exhibit similar behavior. I have shown several where it is not and there are many many more.

---

Apparently you've missed the fact that I'm agreeing with you on that point. It is in-group reciprocity and yes it shows up in other cultures. I agree that the Bible is not unique in identifying this principle.I'm trying to explain to you that when someone who believes there is one supernatural God that reaches out to all people and understands the ethic of reciprocity as the overall message of the Bible; then seeing it in other cultures today and throughout time can be a compelling reason for them to conclude that the Bible is the word of God.

quote:

---

To paraphrase first you have to have faith that the bible describes the supernatural God of the universe and then the bible is compelling.

---

No you don't. One can learn from the Bible wether or not they believe God is supernatural. This isn't about whether the Bible is compelling. It is about what reasons or evidence compel people to conclude that the Bible is or is not the word of God.The ethic of reciprocity is one reason for those people who believe there is one supernatural God that reaches out to all people and understands the ethic of reciprocity as the overall message of the Bible.You do not find ethic of reciprocity a compelling reason to accept the Bible as the word of God, which is fine.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Absolutely not!Why would anyone include that as a definition as "from God". That would be in "they that think it is from god" category, pretty much useless.If that is your definition then you must accept the Koran and the Hindu Vedas. etc. as from God.

Only from a male perspective. Different culture yes, but is God cultural relative? I think of God as a lot larger - large enough to create a universe.OK I have to make this quick as it is late.The ethic of reciprocity in-group can actually be explained and modeled from a natural selection perspective. It it found throughout the natural world. Nothing compelling here.However, i will admit "Love your Enemies" takes it to a different level and is more interesting. Suddenly you may have a principle that maybe universal, not cultural relative and not necessarily explainable by evolutionary psychology. Something to ponder. No the point I don't see any examples of ethic of reciprocity (out-group) demonstrated in the entire OT. So I don't understand how it can be a compelling reason.Goodnight.

Why wouldn't I accept the Qur'an and Vedas as well as the writings of Mencius, the Buddha, Confucius, the Tao or others as from GOD?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If your definition "from god" only requires the individual writing the text to Think they are inspired from God then I guess you are correct!But you may have to include Kaczynski and Manson and other crazed individuals in your list.Unless of course you have some other filter, but you are keeping that card close to the chest.

The Bible, the Qur'an, the writings of Mencius or Buddha, Lao Tzu or Confucius are but Maps. They are NOT the Territory.No one can KNOW that they are talking to GOD. They may well believe it, but it cannot be known. Absolutely. As well as James Jones and Marshall Applewhite. No, I'm not keeping the filter close to the chest, in fact I have written extensively about that here. YOU, the individual must test the Map against the Territory. The person that places complete trust in the Map and does not test it against the Territory is likely to go astray. Just because the Map says that a bridge is there does not mean it has not been washed out.I covered some of this in Message 1, more in Message 1 and in Message 1 and in Message 1.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion