Bible: Word of God or Not

Besides, in any nation there are great people, and criminals. Any society in general will always reflect itself statistically as below average; look at the crime statistics for this country, and then think about the 'idealic' messages of our founding fathers.

hye, hey, hey, can I not have an INFERRED general message? And just because I infer it, can it not make sense as well? The OT is not historical, but it is nonetheless a history. It speaks many times about the Jews having a special part in God's plan. The Jews WERE the nation, Jesus included everyone, because the Jews had done their part to bring God's word through history up till His birth. The NT is the culmination for some, the turning point for some, the cut-off point for some. I incline to the culmination; that if it were not for the OT, we would not see the significance of Jesus life, as a fulfillment of the scriptures. And good ol' Paul, leave it to him to be the first to INFER, so at least I have a leg in.

The problem you are having is in seperating the old and the new. Just picture any novel; you will find some interesting points in each chapter, but you can not get the author's total plot until the end, and that is assuming a person can follow the plot, without getting caught up in the events which lead to it, or the personal opinions, local color, etc. which may be thrown in. I think the bible has a plot. I infer it somewhat, the same way I infer the plot in "A Tlae of two Cities". I mean, Dickens does not just sit there and repeat the ideal of loyalty on every page. He just tells a story, and appeals to the reader to find meaning.

I do not mind poking and prodding! Wouldn't say I am touchy, either. If anything, I would rather defend my ability to reason, than my ability to believe any old thing! Many people can not discuss religion without getting "touchy" and I assume the debate forums are for the rest of us.
I disagree with the idea that Jesus did not speak to or recruit non-Jews. If you want biblical proof, I will get straight on it. But why do I need to look in the bible for proof, when the topic is asking how we can prove the bible? If the bible contains proof that it is true, apparently it does not work for everyone, so we are still stuck with belief.

I am familiar with the different authors of the bible; recently I started a book by a famous author, who requested that his book be finished posthmously by another more famous author. I have not read the whole book yet, but I have no doubt that it will reveal a plot. Of course, we can not be sure it will be the intended plot, just as we know that the many possible endings to Beethoven's 10th could never do justice in revealing his intent.
But this is just an analogy. I am not sure if you are in this debate from the side of a person who believes the bible is the word of God, or not. Technically, iceage appealed to those who do, so I have no need to get into a stink about the 'many authors' of the bible, when responding to the question 'is God the author?'.

I am still sticking with the plot of 'the redemption of mankind'; yes, by loving our neighbor, yes, by obeying God. I do not disagree with 'love your neighbor' as being a timelessly relevant message, but it is not compelling enough for everyone to turn to the bible. As someone mentioned, the Egyptians may have voiced this idea in their own culture, and for many, it does not take belief in God or in the bible to practice it. There are Eastern philosophies which embrace a complete respect for each other and all life. There are people who believe that Jesus was just a man, a great teacher, and that his primary message was peace and love. There are hippies. I find it to be a bit of an injustice to the impact of christianity, to say it is all about love. "Love one another", in the bible it is 'a new commandment', and 'the greatest commandment'. So, Honda33 is right, God wants us to obey, and PurpleDawn is right, 'love one another' is the most relevant of commandments. But I would have to ask myself what the importance of obeying God is, if not for our salvation, or the consequences of not obeying. So, I find the overall message of sin, and redemption from it, most compelling. I find it consistant through Genesis, which describes the fall of men, to Exodus, in which men are told how to escape punishment by the following of commandments, to the gospels, which say 'from this time on, to escape punishment, men need not the old law, but belief in Jesus', to Paul, who draws the parallels. Jesus said "this is My blood, which will be shed for you, unto the remission of sins". It is a complex statement, as is saying "My kingdom is not of this world". Such doctrinal and controversial statements are not very significant if the bible is dismissed as being about love.

Just as I was saying about 'A Tale of Two Cities'; the moral there is more apparant than in 'The Lord of the Rings' or 'Treasure Island'. It (the moral) is never spelled out for us, consistantly or otherwise, by Dickens; it is illustrated within the context of the story, and is the sum total of all its parts.Edited by anastasia, : edited to correct improper spacing

...Two questions...If we agree on the possibility of an inferred moral, is the moral in question 'love thy neighbor'? What I mean is - if love is the sum total of the bible, it may indeed be pointed out to have exceptions. But if we look at the sum total of the bible as being about redemption, even the exceptions to the law of love can be said to fall into the story as illustrations of the righteous wrath and punishment of God, or even of self-inflicted punishment due to disobedience. God will often let the world wreck its own havoc in the form of wars etc. which can be said to be an inflicted punishment for accumulated sins.
For the second question, which I am really curious about- Is it more important to say the writers of the bible were inspired, or the compilers? Perhaps God only wanted to inspire the compilation of the bios, histories, and myths, that would best illustrate His divine plan. Maybe he just inspired the preservation of these stories over other stories, as they would prove relevant to future generations. I am not saying I believe any of this per se, just trying to give possibilities for how it could be problematic, especially when you get past this into 'inspired' translations. Is there an appropriate teaching for this?

How do we determine what is the norm and what is the exception? One could easily posit from the OT a new moral "Treat everyone as lesser mortals except your male neighbors" -Honda33-Honda33, I am not saying you are wrong, but you are still working at odds here with what I am saying and possibly Ringo as well. My point is that I personally view the Bible as a cohesive whole; you are still trying to seperate the OT and the NT. I do not determine what is the norm, and what is the exception. Jesus does, however. Maybe not blatantly, but through his teachings.Also, I am not the one who said that the moral is 'love' ( tho' I am mulling over Ringo's idea that it is the 'carrot'); so, yes, you can posit many, many little morals from the whole Bible. For me it is akin to saying 'the early bird gets the worm'. That is timelessly relevent, but compelling? Edited by anastasia, : to include quote

If you take redemption as the theme, you're looking at the negative instead of the positive, the bad news instead of the Good News. The gospel is a carrot, redemption is a stick. (Ringo)I am really not trying to argue, but the answer to this may be interesting; How is redemption negative? The flaw may be in the wording here, but I for one have no problem with accepting some harshness from God, in terms of the harsh reality of death. This harsh reality, and the possibilty of eternal damnation, is what exactly is compelling about the BIble. It offers an alternative, and an attractive one for many.You may believe that war is its own punishment. I ask you to make that more clear. Perhaps I am a proponant of a lesser known view, but I absolutely think the idea of war being an incurred punishment for sin is worth considering. My belief arises SOMEWHAT from the four horsemen of the Apocolypse; war is a scourge upon man, the same as famine, disease, etc.

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.

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.....

I totally understand! The 'cart' is faith, the 'horse' is evidence. Most of us have faith first, and then look for or create evidence of its truth. I admit to following the faith of my ancestors, I admit to riding the cart of disbelief in other religions. I further admit that, while I sometimes DO put the horse first and search for objective evidence for the Bible, I DO NOT do that for other religions and their documents. Not because of any pre-set prejudice, simply because I find enough fascination in my own faith, and enough questions to ponder, to last a life-time. At the end of the day, the only real answer anyone can give to your topic/question, aside from a personal revelation from God, is that they BELIEVE the Bible is His word. No evidence exists nor ever will that it either is, or is not. This knowledge presents no problem for me; it is the essence of the matter. The Bible is the story of sin, and redemption. If we believe in it, we will follow its commands, including 'love one another' and 'love thy enemies'. These commands presuppose belief. They presuppose our fallen nature; if we were perfect, we would have no need for commandments or clues about the path to take. They presuppose a consequence to those who do not follow the commands; else, why even bother? Above all things, God desires faithfullness. The moment the Bible is proven to be truly the word of God, it would effectively discontinue all need for faith. So yes, there is no way around 'putting the cart before the horse'.

-Imperfection doesn't presuppose or even imply a "fallen nature".-
Imperfection may not presuppose a fallen nature. You have changed my intentions by taking the words in a slightly different context. I will try again. Following a commandment presupposes a perceived imperfection on the part of the believer. Take a person who follows a diet and exercise regime. There can be in he/she a perception or a REALIZATION of flaw. There could also be a perception or belief that to desist from the regime would lead to a disintigration of the status quo. Now, a person could also follow a command without the perception or realization of flaw or impending flaw in themselves. as in a person with a difficult boss. This person could obey for fear of consequences, or punishment. This still demonstrates a willing subordination to a greater goal, and the belief that one exists.-Why must there be a "need" for faith? Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. It's a fall-back position for what we don't see, not an ideal.-Here I find we are in agreement! There is no necessity for faith, except when attempting to make sense of what we don't see. As I said, if God were to make HImself known concretely and for all to see, we would have no need for faith.

Certainly if you or I wished we may view the Bible as a work of men, and still follow its laws with the goal of improving self or society. That boils back down to the universal principle of 'love thy neighbor'. It is still an imcomplete picture, because it leaves no room for the supernatural goal. It ignores the words of Jesus when he speaks of remitting sin, it ignores the command to love God before our neighbor. These aspects of the Bible concern a higher goal than our own success or a functioning society. They speak of salvation or the consequences of NOT obeying e.g.; damnation. You may disagree all you like, but we are only discussing what the Bible says, and whether or not it can be evidenced as being from God. What the Bible says is "the wages of sin, is death". Not "if you ignore my commands, you will be a failure in life". If you want to prove whether the Bible is the word of God, which I think is unprovable, it is best to start with what it actually says, than to concoct your own version.