Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Origin of Gods word
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 1 of 200 (112518)
06-02-2004 10:46 PM


This question never seems to get resolved so I would like to ask of believers that agree with the statement "The bible is not the work of men but the word of God" the reasoning behind that conclusion.
The only way that ancient manuscripts including the bible are ever in print is due to the work of men so how do you arrive at this assertion?
I really would like to see some thought process behind this and not verbal pablum.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by One_Charred_Wing, posted 06-03-2004 2:08 AM sidelined has not replied

  
AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 2 of 200 (112547)
06-03-2004 1:36 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
One_Charred_Wing
Member (Idle past 6156 days)
Posts: 690
From: USA West Coast
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 3 of 200 (112550)
06-03-2004 2:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
06-02-2004 10:46 PM


Thumbs up!
I've been wondering that for awhile myself. However, when they (Bible literalists) say it is the word of God they could also be speaking in a less literal sense in that it was Divinely inspired.
While that sounds pretty reasonable, the point you have adressed toward those who believe it is absolutely the word of God and not of humans is a good one; and I'd like to debate them as well from a theistic standpoint.

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 06-02-2004 10:46 PM sidelined has not replied

  
almeyda
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 200 (112561)
06-03-2004 3:25 AM


The proof of the Bible is its uniqueness among other books. No other book or religious textbook/philosophy can say they have the credentials of being a Holy/Divine Bible as the actual Holy Bible.
- Written over 1,500 yr span
-Written over 40 generations
-Written by over 40 authors from all walks of life:
Moses - Trained in the universities of Egypt
Peter - Fishermen
Amos - Herdsmen
Joshua - Military leader
Nehemiah - Cupbearer
Daniel - Prime minister
Luke - Doctor
Solomon - King
Matthew - Tax collector
Paul - Rabbi
How likely is it that vastly different authors would write hundreds of yrs apart under different situations and still be consistent. All seeming to be guided by the same God and speaking on the same future messiah. Some locations/situations included:
In a palace - Daniel (540 BC)
Prison - Paul (A.D 60)
Travelling - Luke (A.D 60)
Fighting - Joshua
Wilderness - Moses
In a dungeon - Jeremiah (600 BC)
In joy - David (1000 BC)
In despair - Jeremiah
The Bible contains books of history, law, prophecy, poetry, proverbs, & songs. Adding complexity to the divine design are vastly different styles in which various books are written. An unlikely combination of books to be grouped together by anyone. Yet they miraculously tie together in theme, message and even many cross-references.
- Written on 3 continents (Asia,Africa & Europe)
-Written in 3 languages (Hebrew,Aramaic,Greek)
-Survival through time,persecution & criticism:
Infidels for 1800yrs have been refuting and overthrowing the Bible, yet it stands today solid as a rock. its circulation increses and is loved more,cherished more and read more than ever before. The Bible has withstood vicious attacks of its enemies as no other book. Many have tried to ban it, outlaw it, and burn it from the days of Roman emperors to present day communist dominated countries.
This does not of course prove the Bible to be Gods word, But the amazing thing is this is just a slice of what the Bible has done through time. Only Gods true words could achieve what the Bible has. It does not prove God but it does prove it stands alone among other books. Anyone seeking truth ought to consider a book that has the above unique qualifications.
This message has been edited by almeyda, 06-03-2004 02:27 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by jar, posted 06-03-2004 4:18 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 6 by sidelined, posted 06-03-2004 8:37 AM almeyda has not replied
 Message 10 by Loudmouth, posted 06-03-2004 8:58 PM almeyda has not replied
 Message 12 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2004 6:31 AM almeyda has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 5 of 200 (112568)
06-03-2004 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by almeyda
06-03-2004 3:25 AM


Almeyda
Absolutely nothing in your cut and past list adds any authority or validity to the Bible.
Some examples.
- Written over 1,500 yr span
What does that have to do with anything? It is also true about the Authur legends.
-Written by over 40 authors from all walks of life:
What does that have to do with anything? It is also true about the Authur legends.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by almeyda, posted 06-03-2004 3:25 AM almeyda has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 6 of 200 (112585)
06-03-2004 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by almeyda
06-03-2004 3:25 AM


almeyda
I asked about this statement in my original post
The bible is not the work of men but the word of God.
Your entire post supports the notion that it was indeed the work of men.That it was written over a 1500 year span of time is exactly what we would expect of the works of men.That it was written by 40 different authors over that time span only lend credence to this point.
You make this point.
Complexity is to be expected as is contradiction within the book which we also find in abundance.There are many books that contain the same thing and convince their adherents of the divinely origin of their books.Again this is also to be expected of men.
Survival through time,persecution & criticism:
You are not aware of other books that have suffered the same fate?
What has it achieved that has not been the labour of men?
Anyone seeking truth ought to consider a book that has the above unique qualifications.
But these qualifications are not unique nor are the myths of the bible even the originals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by almeyda, posted 06-03-2004 3:25 AM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by mike the wiz, posted 06-03-2004 3:32 PM sidelined has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 7 of 200 (112663)
06-03-2004 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by sidelined
06-03-2004 8:37 AM


Ofcourse, it is the writings of men, God didn't literally write it. The only parts I see as God's actual writings are the two tablets of stone with the Commandments written on them.
I do see it as the inspired word of God. The prophecies are a big factor. The "contradictions" you say exist, I have discovered to NOT be big deals/contradictions, except for when those with doubt and unbelief read it. There are some truly silly "supposed" contradictions, invented by desperate atheists.
There is a lot of truths throughout it aswell. God knows which meats are unclean, and knows of diseases, and on what day to circumcise. He warns us to not eat fat and blood, and to be "unclean" and wash after touching dead things etc. But this stuff is the tip of the iceburg. The bible is in-exhaustable, and the knowledge/wisdom seems to be an endless source of truth. Also, when reading about atonement/sacrifice, and how holy and clean people must be in God's presence, then you start to uncover a full explanation of Christ.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-03-2004 06:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by sidelined, posted 06-03-2004 8:37 AM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-03-2004 4:53 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 8 of 200 (112674)
06-03-2004 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by mike the wiz
06-03-2004 3:32 PM


Mike the Wiz quote:
______________________________________________________________________
I do see it as the inspired word of God.
______________________________________________________________________
Mike, what the hell are you talking about ?
The claim of the canon is that the canon is the inspired word of God.
The entire Catholic, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox, Middle East, African churches all agree and claim the canon to be God's word.
That is the claim and it is not a matter of opinion.
Why are you so wishy washy all of a sudden ?
Have you changed crowds that you are playing before ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mike the wiz, posted 06-03-2004 3:32 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by mike the wiz, posted 06-03-2004 5:42 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 48 by ramoss, posted 09-30-2004 9:43 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 9 of 200 (112678)
06-03-2004 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Cold Foreign Object
06-03-2004 4:53 PM


Yes, I see the bible as the word of God. As in, it's inspired. What? Do you think God himself wrote it???
What do you mean changed crowds?
PS. My language wasn't too understandable in the post you referred to, after re-reading it. I have corrected it. I am a lazy typist.
This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 06-03-2004 06:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-03-2004 4:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 200 (112689)
06-03-2004 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by almeyda
06-03-2004 3:25 AM


quote:
- Written over 1,500 yr span
We are still writing about Homer's Illiad after hundreds of years. I don't see how a time span gives credence to any book.
quote:
How likely is it that vastly different authors would write hundreds of yrs apart under different situations and still be consistent.
1. The new authors had already read the other accounts and edited their own accounts for consistency.
2. Redactors went through the Bible and edited out inconsistencies after the fact.
quote:
The Bible contains books of history, law, prophecy, poetry, proverbs, & songs. Adding complexity to the divine design are vastly different styles in which various books are written. An unlikely combination of books to be grouped together by anyone. Yet they miraculously tie together in theme, message and even many cross-references.
For this to have credence, you must show that the separate authors had no knowledge of the previous works. Otherwise, consistency could be ascribed to fitting in new material that doesn't clash with previous material.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by almeyda, posted 06-03-2004 3:25 AM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2004 6:07 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 11 of 200 (112894)
06-05-2004 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Loudmouth
06-03-2004 8:58 PM


We are still writing about Homer's Illiad after hundreds of years. I don't see how a time span gives credence to any book.
and yet, ironically, the trojan wars apparently did happen.
1. The new authors had already read the other accounts and edited their own accounts for consistency.
2. Redactors went through the Bible and edited out inconsistencies after the fact.
there's a major problem here you neglected to mention: the bible does have inconsistencies. it's RIDDLED with them. the four gospels, recent texts, don't even line up in all areas.
people who say that bible is the literal word of god fail to understand it's history. like how it got lost before babylonian exhile, and reconstructed in the form of the targums. the torah was reconstructed from these, and often times when a story was in conflict BOTH were put in. (see gen 1 v. gen 2). knowing just this, aside from the edittings, compilations, translations, translations from translations, etc... even if the bible originally WAS the word of god, literally written by him in his own hand, it cannot possibly be today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Loudmouth, posted 06-03-2004 8:58 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 06-07-2004 10:51 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 12 of 200 (112895)
06-05-2004 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by almeyda
06-03-2004 3:25 AM


i'd like to respond to this, as a believing christian
The proof of the Bible is its uniqueness among other books. No other book or religious textbook/philosophy can say they have the credentials of being a Holy/Divine Bible as the actual Holy Bible.
having read the christian bible, including the torah, i find more validity in the torah, personally, than the nt. i've also read portions of the bhagavad gita, a sacred hindu text. the quran is next on my list, and eventually the qabala. i've also read greek plays, know a bit about nead, the iliad, and have read gilgamesh and beowulf.
it's not that different. many of those texts, as well as none mythological texts such as fictional traditions (arthur, et al) hold many of those properties.
How likely is it that vastly different authors would write hundreds of yrs apart under different situations and still be consistent. All seeming to be guided by the same God and speaking on the same future messiah.
no, that is a lie. i've read the bible. it has inconsistencies all throughout it. i chalk it to human error, but you prescribing the errors i've seen to my god is blasphemy. please do not insult my god again by saying he's that stupid.
The Bible contains books of history, law, prophecy, poetry, proverbs, & songs. Adding complexity to the divine design are vastly different styles in which various books are written.
i thought you said it was consistent?
An unlikely combination of books to be grouped together by anyone. Yet they miraculously tie together in theme, message and even many cross-references.
no, actually, they don't. paul's themes (abandon judaic law) are very different from jesus's theme's ("i did not come to change the law but to fulfil it"). and that's staying inside the new testament. if we wanna cross that line, it's even easier.
the theme of a lot of the torah is "obey god at any cost" and teaches this through various methods (counter example, proverbs, etc). the theme of a lot of the nt is "believe in jesus"
who is, ironically, not mentioned anywhere in the ot. unless, of course, you're reading joseph smith's annotated version in the book of moses.
Written in 3 languages (Hebrew,Aramaic,Greek)
aramaic was a dialect spoken in galilea at the time of christ. it is then very ironic that none of the bible was written in aramaic. or at least, none that we have today. all of the nt was written in GREEK only, but 3 of the 4 gospels were likely copied from a 5th "q" gospel which MAY have been aramaic. this is all speculation though.
Survival through time,persecution & criticism:
how about the gnostic gospels? those didn't survive when the christian church decided to, you know, kill the gnostics. burn monks and whatnot. that text went. portions of the torah are missing, like the three books of maccabees. early targums conflict, and modern translations are often WRONG.
the bible has NOT survived intact.
Many have tried to ban it, outlaw it, and burn it from the days of Roman emperors to present day communist dominated countries.
communism and religion don't mix, as a principle. (communism and government also don't mix, but i'll let this point slide) but uh, watch some tapes of muslim fundamentalists sometime, and tell my why they'd be afraid of religion. especially one that's caused a thousands years worth of wars and executions.
Anyone seeking truth ought to consider a book that has the above unique qualifications.
i think this is a communication problem.
i consider it.
you take every word as literal fact.
as a christian, i can say this. christianity is about a personal relationship with god, a gap bridged by his son. right? why rely on a preacher? what someone else says? a book full of problems and errors and mistranslations, and what someone else tells you that you have to believe about it in order to get to heaven, as if that's even the point?
it's more in the way. more between you and god. and until you realize the real purpose of the bible, and it's message, you're going to get caught up in the details. who cares if the bible's a little off here and there? it's JUST a book. your god is not a book. there is more meaning to be found there than "god worked 6 days and took a coffee break"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by almeyda, posted 06-03-2004 3:25 AM almeyda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by AdminTL, posted 06-06-2004 12:00 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
AdminTL
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 200 (112990)
06-06-2004 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by arachnophilia
06-05-2004 6:31 AM


Re: i'd like to respond to this, as a believing christian
Arachnophilia writes:
no, actually, they don't. paul's themes (abandon judaic law) are very different from jesus's theme's ("i did not come to change the law but to fulfil it"). and that's staying inside the new testament. if we wanna cross that line, it's even easier.
the theme of a lot of the torah is "obey god at any cost" and teaches this through various methods (counter example, proverbs, etc). the theme of a lot of the nt is "believe in jesus"
While I am by no means a literalist, I do not agree with any of this. "I did not come to change the law, but to fulfill it," is very difficult for an American to understand. Irenaeus, a native Greek speaker, devoted a couple pages to it in his book, Against Heresies, written about AD 185. His interpretation fits the context of Matt 5 so well, I am convinced it has to be right.
I address that issue in the thread Do James and Paul Really Contradict on Faith and Works?, so I'll leave it alone here. We don't have to debate it, I just wanted to point out I don't believe Paul and Jesus contradict on the law, nor do I believe it is accurate to say Paul said to abandon Judaic law.
What is more certainly inaccurate, however, is the statement that the NT replaces "obey God at any cost" with "believe in Jesus." That may be true of Baptist and some other churches, but I don't believe there's the slightest indication of such a view in the NT. Instead, front to back, the point of the NT is that believing in Jesus is solely for the purpose of enabling humans to obey God at any cost.
who is, ironically, not mentioned anywhere in the ot. unless, of course, you're reading joseph smith's annotated version in the book of moses.
This depends solely on your view of what the NT says, not the Old. I believe the NT says that Jesus is the Word of God who was in the beginning with God, and that he was the Messenger of God, bearing his name, throughout the history of Israel. Since that is the person the NT writings describe, then it is obvious that person is mentioned repeatedly in the Tanach. He is not mentioned by the name Jesus (Yeshua), but why should he be, since he didn't get that name until NT times?
how about the gnostic gospels? those didn't survive when the christian church decided to, you know, kill the gnostics. burn monks and whatnot
That the Christian church killed any gnostics is highly debatable. The "Gnostic Gospels" were written in the 1st and 2nd century, when the churches had no authority, ability, or desire to kill anyone. There were groups accused of gnosticism many centuries later, when the catholic churches had political power, but it seems very unlikely to me that these so-called gnostic groups had any relation to the producers of the Gnostic Gospels.
the bible has NOT survived intact.
Perhaps the best example of this is the book of Jeremiah. The Septuagint (the Greek translation made around or just before the time of Christ) differs from the currently popular Masoretic text by no less than seven chapters. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, there was a Jeremiah scroll that agreed with the Septuagint version.
Seven entire chapters.
as a christian, i can say this. christianity is about a personal relationship with god, a gap bridged by his son. right? why rely on a preacher? what someone else says?
Because the person who spread Christianity all over the part of the world that led to our believing in America said "How shall they hear without a preacher." Christianity is a very ineffective personal religion, and it is not at all about a personal relationship with God. Christ came to establish a church that would prove the power of Christ by their unity and love for one another (said Christ in Jn 13:35 and Jn 17:20-23, confirmed repeatedly, of course, by Paul, who equated the Church and Christ in 1 Cor 12:12).
If you are a believer in Christ, then it should follow that you believe that the Gospel is all about God's Word being wrapped up in human flesh. It came first in Christ himself, the Word of God who became flesh and dwelt among us. Then he chose messengers and he told them, "He who receives you receives me, and he who rejects you rejects me." Originally, Christianity was completely about Christ being revealed in a people together, and receiving them was the only way to receive Christ.
Notice that when Paul saw Christ on the Damascus road, he did not simply "accept Christ." He was sent by Yeshua to a man in the church, Ananias. If you ever find or see the unity and love that Yeshua spoke of, a love so unusual that it would convince those who saw it of the power of God, there you will also find people who know the reason that even Yeshua himself would send converts to a person or people, not simply allow them to "receive him."
it's JUST a book. your god is not a book.
Amen, friend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by arachnophilia, posted 06-05-2004 6:31 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by truthlover, posted 06-06-2004 12:01 AM AdminTL has not replied
 Message 15 by arachnophilia, posted 06-06-2004 3:51 AM AdminTL has not replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 4060 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 14 of 200 (112991)
06-06-2004 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by AdminTL
06-06-2004 12:00 AM


Bummer
You'd think that with the new sign in method, I could remember to sign in as the right person.
I've been busy just about every minute from April 1 till last week. I'm out of practice!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by AdminTL, posted 06-06-2004 12:00 AM AdminTL has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 15 of 200 (113024)
06-06-2004 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by AdminTL
06-06-2004 12:00 AM


Re: i'd like to respond to this, as a believing christian
i won't repsond too much, since there's a thread for this.
but i disagree with this on a purely historical basis:
but I don't believe there's the slightest indication of such a view in the NT. Instead, front to back, the point of the NT is that believing in Jesus is solely for the purpose of enabling humans to obey God at any cost.
under examination different specific purposes can be shown for each book of the nt. mark was written for the early church, matthew to convert jews, john as symbolic propaganda (interpretted literally, christ is blasphemous for proclaiming himself a deity), and luke to reconcile existing gospels of various churches, along with it's companion book, acts, as a history of the early church.
paul's letters were written to various churches, and he advises them locally on what he thinks they should do in difficulte matters. his advise is often like in galations 5, give up the old covenant for the new. by this point in the church, things were already beginning to take an anti-semitic turn as the church scrambled for legitimacy instead of being labeled and judais offshoot cult. by 300 ad the church was solidified and openly anti-jewish. there is a lot of anti-semitic subtext in the book of john, for instance, which was probably written well before then.
it's historical fact that the early christian church tried to set itself apart from judaism as a seperate religion, and therefore there will always be disagreements between the two.
although, the overall theme you observed is basically the foundation of christianity, so...
This depends solely on your view of what the NT says, not the Old. I believe the NT says that Jesus is the Word of God who was in the beginning with God, and that he was the Messenger of God, bearing his name, throughout the history of Israel. Since that is the person the NT writings describe, then it is obvious that person is mentioned repeatedly in the Tanach. He is not mentioned by the name Jesus (Yeshua), but why should he be, since he didn't get that name until NT times?
the word of god has a name in hebrew, actually. "memra." one targum points to this variety of god as opposed to the standard "eloyhim" being responsible for creation. and it makes sense, the depiction is god speaking creation, or god speaking to moses about how creation happened.
the messenger bit has very little foundation. that would mean jesus would have to be an incarnation of malakh yahweh, the angel of the lord. or as he's been called, metatarsus. this would of course take away his divinity. (which i'm fine with, btw)
That the Christian church killed any gnostics is highly debatable.
i'll look for more info, but i recall seeing it in a documentary.
"How shall they hear without a preacher."
hear, and take as the word of god are different matters. the following bit doesn't matter much to me, because i disregard the gospel of john, and all of paul's letters. (for reasons discussed above)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by AdminTL, posted 06-06-2004 12:00 AM AdminTL has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by truthlover, posted 06-08-2004 5:31 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024