Is the bible authoritive and truly inspired?

I have no idea what your post has to do with what I said in my post or the topic.You'll have to elaborate if you want any discussion.

---

Scripture is like Newton’s third law of motionfor every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
In other words, for every biblical directive that exists, there is another scriptural mandate challenging it.
-- Carlene Cross in The Bible and Newton’s Third Law of Motion

quote:

---

1. Was it possible for these imperfect men to produce a record that is actually Gods message?

​

not without the help of the Holy Spirit. the Bible encompasses about 2,000 years and the men did not know every other writer.

---

How long it took for the writings to emerge and the fact that the writers may not have known each other has no bearing on whether it was possible for mankind to produce a record that is actually God's message. Mankind can write whatever they want and attribute it to God.

quote:

---

2. How do we know they did not write of their own impulse, but were inspired by God as they claim?

​

much of the information recorded they would not be privy to, nor have access to the records or records would be lost. in other words it would be impossible for them to obtain and gather all the records they would need to write the Bible.

---

Please provide support that the writers didn't have access to the information necessary to write what they wrote. What makes you feel it was impossible for them to obtain and gather all the records they would need to write their stories.Several books are referred to in the OT.
Book of the Kings of Israel (1 Chronicles 9:1)
Annals of Jehu Son of Hanani, recorded in the Book of the Kings of Israel. (2 Chronicles 20:34)
Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel (1 & 2 Kings)
Book of the Annals of the Kings of Media and Persia (Esther 10:2)
book of the records of thy fathers (Ezra 4:15)
Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah (2 Numbers)
Book of the Annals of Solomon (1 King 11:41)
Book of the Annals of King David (1 Chronicles 27:24)The NT writers had access to the OT writings. I'm not clear on why you feel they didn't have the information they needed to write?

quote:

---

3. How do we know the writings we have today are the same as they were written by the original men who wrote it.

​

because God promised to preserve His word. if He didn't then He lied and would not be God and there would be no hope or salvation for man.

---

Where does God promise to preserve what was originally written by these men?

quote:

---

PD writes:

​

Where does God promise to preserve what was originally written by these men?

​

mt. 24:35; mk 13:31; lk 21:33

---

That verse is not a promise to preserve what was originally written by men. Jesus supposedly said his words would not pass away. Jesus didn't write anything. We don't really know if the words attributed to Jesus by unknown authors were spoken by Jesus as written.

quote:

---

none of those books are mentioned in the NT and it was written 400 years or so after the last OT book was. also, you argue that God is not part of the picture yet you use the divine when you need it. take God and his promise to preserve His words out of the picture then the NT writers wouldn't have those books, and probably the OT to use.

---

You didn't provide support that the writers didn't have access to the information necessary to write what they wrote. You didn't provide support that it was impossible for them to obtain and gather all the records they would need to write their stories.

quote:

---

now you are just being obstinate.

---

No I'm reading the verses you proposed. These types of comments do not move the discussion forward. Please move the discussion forward. The verses do not say that God promises to preserve what man writes concerning God.

quote:

---

and you can't nor didn't prove or provide evidence that they did.

---

You made the original claim in Message 139 that they didn't have access to the information they needed and that it was impossible for them to obtain and gather the records as a response to Peg's question. It is your job to show that what you claim is so.I showed that they had access to information.As I said in Message 140: The NT writers had access to the OT writings. I'm not clear on why you feel they didn't have the information they needed to write?What specific information if any do you feel they didn't have access to and why?

quote:

---

The Bible is God's "whole counsel" on how God has chosen to reveal Himself to man, and how man can come into right relationship with Him through the Lord Jesus Christ.

---

Actually the various Bibles are a way for their respective groups to reveal their view of their God to men and how people can come into right relationship with their religion.Men determine which writings are considered holy and authoritative to their respective religions. Irenaeus' argument for having only four gospels isn't really based on anything spiritual or what the various gospels said, but because there are four zones of the world and four principle winds. The other reason was because the various heretics used them.Christianity is a religion of the book, which is odd considering 85-95% of the early followers were illiterate. The writings were inspired by the needs of the people. Overall the various versions of the "book" were written by man and men determined what writings would be considered authoritative concerning their respective religions. Man still does today.

---

The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. --Gospel of Mary

quote:

---

(2) Because 40 different writers wrote 66 books of the Bible over 1500+ years presenting God's love and salvation message to man that has been working for New Testament Believers for 2000 years. Show me one other example of any other book ever written by men that can compare with the Bible?

---

That doesn't show that the men were inspired by God and not writing of their own impulse. The writers saw a need and filled it. Remember the majority of Hebrews were illiterate, so the writers weren't writing for the masses to read. Manuscripts had to be read to the masses. Same for the NT.

quote:

---

(3) ... The Bibles we have today can be verified to be accurate based on manuscripts that date back to the time of Christ.

---

We don't have any original NT manuscripts dating back to the time of Christ. The NT originals weren't even written in the time of Christ.In 1707, John Mill published his book which uncovered over 30,000 variations between the Greek NT available at the time.There were accidental changes in the NT texts and intentional changes. Since there are no originals, what we have today are what scholars have decided were most likely to be what the originals were probably trying to say. Johann Albrecht Bengel introduced the rule of thumb for critics when faced with variations. As I said earlier, the decision to have only four Gospels was based on the use by the heretics and that there are four zones, directions.So we don't know that what we have today is the same as the the original manuscripts written by the original authors.The science of textual criticism doesn't mean the scholars are speaking badly about the Bible or Christianity. It is an attempt to return the manuscripts as close as possible to what scholars believe the original authors probably wrote.

quote:

---

To believe a Bible is divinely inspired, one has to believe not only that the many authors at many different times were divinely inspired, but that a divinely-inspired thread of editors shaped and pruned that one God-approved edition.

---

Then we have the textual critics that worked to return the text to agree with the oldest known copies.So scribes added or deleted as they saw fit, then scholars worked to return the works to what they feel is the closest to the oldest copies and hopefully what the original writer wrote.Were the scribes inspired or not inspired?
Were the scholars inspired or not inspired?Threats to copyists were common in early Christian writings like the one we see in Revelation 22:18-19.Origen makes the same threat in one of his writings. Copyists were notorious for changing texts.

quote:

---

So you think the writers of the Bible simply "saw a need and filled it"! What evidence can you provide that this is true, and it was not God inspiring these writers to present His salvation message to man through both the OT and NT writings?

---

I didn't say simply. Finding a need and filling it isn't necessarily simple.There were various salvation messages depending on the need of the people. They weren't always in need of saving from their enemies.They were inspired by their beliefs in God and the religious needs of the people around them. Inspiration doesn't mean dictation. Inspiration is being influenced by what's around us or in our thoughts. Inspiration doesn't mean they don't make mistakes. Some scribes tried to make the texts agree with each other. They thought there was a need for agreement. The textual critics were inspired to correct the mistakes and changes made by the scribes. They saw a need and filled it. Some worked over 30 years to try and restore the Greek NT to the earliest known state. Some of the NT writings were done to combat Gnostic writings. Each thought they were doing what was needed at the time.The point is that your comment in Message 263 doesn't do anything to show that they were inspired by God or worked on their own impulse. IMO, they were inspired and worked by their own impulse. A man writing about horses is inspired by horses. A man writing about a deity or religion is inspired by a deity or religion. Again inspiration is not dictation. To take on these writings tasks one has to want to.If you feel that inspiration is dictation, then I disagree with you.

quote:

---

I noticed you failed to provide my complete (3) quote,

---

That's why the three dots were there, to let readers know there was more before the sentence I quoted and chose to respond to.

quote:

---

I was referring mainly to the Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in 1947 and following which date back to 1st century AD which verify the messages of the OT scriptures. Most of the NT writings can be dated back to the 4th century AD, and present God's same salvation message as is found in the Bibles we have today.

---

That depends on what you consider God's message of salvation to be. (Specific verses please)In one of the oldest Greek Manuscripts Luke 22:19 doesn't read the same as our current Bibles. The author of Luke doesn't approach Jesus' death as atonement for sin. In Luke's writing Jesus' death makes people realize their guilt before God and then they repent. Once they repent, then God forgives their sins. Luke 16:30

Basically repentance. I agree that the main point of Jesus' teaching were repentance. Right behavior vs wrong behavior. That was the main point of the Jewish teachings.

quote:

---

John 1:11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him.
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

---

John 1:1-18 is not part of the earliest manuscripts. So it was either added or possibly removed. Since there are no actual originals textual critics can only make an educated guess.According to textual critics, this passage is written in a very poetic style which is not found in the rest of the gospel and some of the most important vocabulary used in the poem isn't found in the rest of the gospel.

quote:

---

John 3:3 and Acts 2:38

---

These speak of repentance.I agree that the message of repentance is still obvious in the NT. Even Buddha taught right behavior as did the OT.There isn't anything that gives the Bible more authority than any other religion or religion-free belief. The authority given to the Bible is given by men.Human suffering has inspired many through the ages to act and teach right behavior.

quote:

---

The Holy Spirit never contradicts the written word. It/he inspires, enlightens, bears witness with our spirit and enlivens, always within the bounds of scripture. It is the spirit of Jehovah who inspired the writers and the one and same spirit of Jesus, son of Jehovah, the Biblical god. He/it is the multipresent member of the trinity which makes the three one and by which the believer is spiritually born children of God, i.e. one spirit effecting the family of Jehovah.

---

But that's the issue at hand. If the Holy Spirit never contradicts the written word, which written word? They aren't all the same. The written word has been changed. Who inspired the changes and then the changes back?Take 1 John 5:7-8: The Johannine Comma was found in the manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate, but not in the majority of the Greek manuscripts.

quote:

---

The essence of God's salvation in Christ Jesus in "BOTH repentance AND being born again by God's Spirit."

​

Do not ignore the entire message of John 3:3-7.

---

Repentance means a change of mind. One puts off the old wrong behavior and puts on new right behavior. A new person is born.Repentance and born again, same idea. It's a matter of continuing right behavior. There's no magical reboot. It's a choice to change.This doesn't really deal with the authority or inspiration behind the Bible.

quote:

---

Read my lips:

​

Because there are a lot of charlatans out there that would like to tell you things (that they say the Holy Spirit told them) that violate the principles of God's Word.

---

And as we've shown you, the text has been accidentally and purposely changed over time. The task now is to figure out what the closest thing we have to an "original" actually said. Some cling to tradition no matter what has been discovered.So which is inspired the text, the changes, the fixers, or the tradition?NOTE: Hypothetical situation to follow. Seriously, hypothetical. Not real. Got it?If someone tells me that Jesus is God and he provides the text to support his position, then I do my research and find that the text he used was corrupted by scribes in the 3rd century. The text in the older manuscripts do not support his position.Which text is inspired? Which text do I trust? Which text tells me he is a charlatan or not?Do we take the oldest or the one that follows a current tradition?

quote:

---

And I've explained to you over and over that the principles of God's salvation that are in Christ Jesus that are in today's Bibles have not changed since they were witten many hundreds of years ago.

​

They work today just like they worked then, for those God is calling to Himself.

---

Unfortunately you don't know that.As I showed in Message 276, the author of Luke doesn't approach Jesus' death as atonement for sin. In Luke's writing Jesus' death makes people realize their guilt before God and then they repent. Once they repent, then God forgives their sins. Luke 16:30You know as well as I do that when one is selling Christianity, they aren't selling the principles. They are selling a belief that Jesus died to atone for our sins or variations thereof. The principles are not the hook.To say the principles haven't changed, means you need to show what the specific principles are and that they haven't been changed from the oldest NT manuscripts. Show or refer to research that supports what you're saying.My comments are based on the research by Bart D. Ehrman.

quote:

---

Now you are getting close to understanding the truth of the God of the Bible (see John 6:44).

---

God of the Bible. Religion of the Book.To believe in Jesus one has to know who Jesus is. The book isn't consistent. A name is nothing without something behind it. If we don't know what the book says, we don't know who Jesus is. You can say the son of God, but really from the way you're talking he is the son of the God of the Bible.After Jesus died, Christians had many views of who Jesus was and the purpose of his death. Fully human, fully divine, half and half, and some believed the Christ part was divine and separate from Jesus. These were all based on the writings or variations of the writings we now have and other writings before Constantine gave backing to one group.Before Constantine, the early Christian writings were copied locally, wherever they started or ended up. As they continued to be copied sometimes there were changes indigenous to the area. Just like the doublets in the OT. Professional scribes didn't do the copying until after Constantine.From the research of Bart D. Ehrman, these are the top ten most familiar verses that weren't originally in the New Testament. (Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Bart D. Ehrman, 2005, Pgs 265-266)

quote:

---

Bart Ehrman never found true faith in our Lord Jesus Christ through the gift of His Spirit, relying instead on intellectual beliefs that had no substance. Instead of pressing on into the reality of God who rewards those who dilligently seek Him (Heb 11:6), Bart turned back to unbelief. Bart never found the Lord who does this:

---

That's a cop out. This thread is not about belief, it is about the book and what is/was written. Either it stayed the same or it didn't. Evidence from Biblical scholars before Ehrman and who didn't lose faith show that the writings were changed and then scholars worked to change them back to what is believed to be the closest to an "original" we can get in some Bibles. Plus you're saying that the reality of the Bible is not the reality of God, but he's the God of the Bible and Christianity is a religion of the book.Ehrman's book is about textual criticism, not belief. Textual criticism means comparing and contrasting various manuscripts in order to distinguish the original meaning. There is no mention of what one should or shouldn't believe in his book. If you disagree with his research, then show the evidence.Was everybody inspired, whether to write, change or restore?
Did everybody have the authority whether to write, change or restore?Quite frankly I'm glad to know that Paul didn't turn against women in 1 Corinthians 14:33-36. Verses 34 and 35 don't fit in with the subject Paul is writing about. Paul is addressing prophecy in the church.In various textual witnesses the verses were shuffled around. They weren't always placed in the same place. Sometimes it was after verse 33 as shown above and sometimes it was after verse 40. This leads some scholars to feel that they were marginal notes dealing with cultural issues of the day. They weren't Paul's words. Later scribes put them in as part of the letter possibly influenced by 1 Timothy 2 which is not written by Paul.This type of change happened many times. Marginal notes became part of the text. Not necessarily the intention of the writer(s).So how much is sanctioned by God?Edited by purpledawn, : Clarification