Bible: Word of God or Not

I am beginning to understand! There are faith AND works people, there are faith ALONE people, and you would be a works alone person e.g. you believe that you may reach salvation simply by following commandments, rules, laws, morality or what have you without regard for where they came from. I think you believe that the commandments are of men, and that a rational being would WANT to follow them because they make sense and can bring functionability to individuals or nations. You see a timeless message in the Bible, but no need to attribute that to a higher power, as it is readily understandable and demonstratable by mortals.

You are right, I can not find a place where it literally says that. But it is not a major set-back. Sometimes the inferrences can be mighty weighty of themselves. Here is one; if you did believe in God, what would make him God? He would have to be all powerful, all knowing, and entirely flawless. This means that all his works and all his creations would be likewise flawless; if they were not, there would prove to be a gap in his knowledge. His creation would be a flaw, which would make him not God. Now, the Bible DOES say that God created man in his image. If we were not therefore perfect, his image must be flawed, and his attempt at replicating himself. Again, he would not be God, or at least a god who is perfect.There is also a thought that comes to mind; what WE think of as perfect, is not neceesarily what God thinks is perfect. In other words, it is possible for God to create anything he wants to. He could create a man who is capable of sin, but that man would still be entirely and perfectly what God desired to create. So the man would be perfect, as in, perfectly following God's design for him.

If by 'effective' you mean that more people obey them, I would have to say it is about the same. A law like 'do not exceed the speed limit' while it is technically human, is based on the 5th commandment; thou shalt not kill. There is an equal chance that any human will obey or disobey, no matter who is said to be the author. It all depends on how 'real' the consequences seem to the individual.If by 'effective' you mean universal, then I will say yes, those said to be of divine origin are more effective than those of men. But again, most of the vital laws of men are just based on a law said to be from God.

Edited by anastasia, : same post

Edited by anastasia, : re-post accident

So which came first; the chicken or the egg?

I see we have a semanticist!assume; to take for granted without actual proof What have I assumed? That God is perfect, or that mankind's universally accepted definition of God is that he is perfect?
When I said "if you did believe in God" I took for granted that believers in God think of him as perfect. I also have concrete knowledge of this. If you want to believe in a god who has 'happy accidents, you may. It could explain a lot, about serial killers and such. But am I wrong to infer from the FACT that people believe God is perfect, that his creations must also be perfect? There is no discrepency here. I used the definition of faith provided and used by ReverendDG, in order to preserve clarity in my respone. It happens to be the correct definition. I know what your intention is. It is to say, that if we met God, we could still continue in our loyalty and trust in Him; but would that be fair to those who had loyalty and trust without seeing Him? Is that the true definition of the word 'faith', belief in what we have not seen?

Does the Bible really say God created evil? Why the need to insist that evil was a creation at all?In the beginning was darkness. God created light, and He saw that it was good. He seperated the light from the darkness.Sometimes, in creating something, you force its opposite into being.

Obviously an omnipotent God is not under compulsion to be anything. If a praiseworthy attribute exists among men, God is its embodiment. He is incapable of contradicting Himself. God's only compulsion, is perfection.Edited by anastasia, : more technical misfires

That sounds all nice and lovable. But I am being serious here. None of us, regardless of prior beliefs, is blindly accepting things now. We are here, questioning. We are for once letting the horse pull the cart.I am not talking about blindly following things, or questioning things. I am talking about KNOWING for sure that God exists. If you had a multiple choice question, and your very life depended on the answer, wouldn't you be irked if the man down the street had the correct answer mailed to him from its originator?

If the 'cup' is a liquid measure, it can be said to have originated from the coffee.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have tried as much as possible to grasp your meaning. I will not say it does not make sense, even if the wording could have been clearer. IMO, the words and/or wording did not have to come verbatim from the lips of God, or we should not dare to translate them. I also do not believe that every detail of the Bible is to be taken literally, or as infallible. There is no reason to think that God inspired every opinion on math and science of the authors. The infallibility for me comes in thus; if a man seeks to know God, and to attain eternal life, the Bible will not lead him astray. Morover, it will show the way every time, unto eternity. Now here is where I will catch heat! It only 'works' if you believe in it! To everyone else it will be a dead book, an historical document which may or may not be accurate, a fairy tale which may or may not have a plot.There are certainly things about the Bible that are above human wisdom and intellect. They tend to make people doubt more than believe. It is beyond our human ability to ascertain from whence we came, and to where we shall go. All we have is belief, of any sort. But it makes no sense to say that God would not make those things necessary to salvation clear to us. It goes back into the 'unfair' category, in that it would be a lost cause to try to follow God, and not know how.

This part we have some clue about. We do not know ALL the folk, but we know some of the major players. As far as I can tell, they looked at the oldest existing documents, which points to a historical preservation aim. They also threw some of them out in favour of the clarity of language found in more recent pages, which points to preservation of content. I am sure with a little research we could uncover what their original intentions were.

I'll grant you two of those! The Bible is complex, and it is not one book.The rest we are still disputing.One story, as in plot, as in general message, is in dispute.
One purpose, as in 'salvation' is in dispute
One origin, one source, and one writer, as in The Word Of God, is the topic of dispute.Sure there are many different writers. Men die, and new ones take their place.Does make me wonder, though, why some feel that God's revelations must have stopped when the Bible was compiled.

It is nice to finally know what you DO believe. And I can relate to most of that, except maybe that last sentence! I read something earlier which seemed to say that the term 'Word of God' was only used for the NT, the Tanakh was simply 'the holy books'. Maybe it would be good to also research when the term was first used, and in what context.---------------------------------------------------------------------