The Bible: Miracles Required to Believe It's the Word of God?

This is in answer to a post by ThingsChange in the Jonah and the Whale thread. I don't, and I'm not sure why you're asking me this. I do know that parts can't be literal, because there is evidence against it being literal. For example, Genesis one is not literal. Noah's flood can't be a literal worldwide flood. In fact, like Genesis One contrasted with Genesis Two, Noah's flood can't be one story, but has to be two stories from two sources combined by some editor into one. I believe in miracles, and I believe I've experienced several. Not sure, but lots of people do. I, on the other hand, do believe in miracles. I just don't believe that the Gospels record history perfectly. They can't, as there are some bad contradictions. None of that affects me much. I believe Jesus really lived. I believe that God had a companion in the beginning we know as the Word, and I believe the Word came to earth and became Jesus. I believe this is a rumor perpetuated by many modern Christians, and it's just not true. It has turned the Bible into a god of paper and leather and a little gold (if you can afford it), and it has made Christianity an embarrassing failure full of claims it can't fulfill and myths that couldn't possibly be true.The Bible does not claim to be the Word of God. It claims that the Word of God was in the beginning with the Father, and he came to earth and became a man. He did so many deeds on the earth that neither the Bible nor all the books on earth, it says, could document all his deeds. Certainly, it cannot contain all he has said or intends to say. They can't. No one can. I was shocked when I found this out, because I had read the Bible at least a dozen times and the NT at least 20 or 25 times, and I was sure the Bible claimed for itself that it was the Word of God. I've asked lots of Bible devotees to produce this chapter and verse and no one has.When I was first realizing this, I looked up every occurrence of the word "Word" in the NT on my computer. Sorry, nothing.

The only verse that really applies is one from 2 Timothy that refers to inspiration - but it isn't clear what exactly it means or even what it applies to.It certainly doesn't imply direct dictation and it is not sensible to read the Bible as if God was the actual author. There are plenty of books which are written otherwise (all of the Epistles for a start !)

Truth says, "I was sure the Bible claimed for itself that it was the Word of God."Do you mean that you are looking for a verse that says something along the lines of, "Verily I say unto you, every word of every verse in the canonized KJV is indeed the Word of God" or are you not satisfied with passages such as those exampled by citations given below:Exodus 31:18 "When the LORD finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the Testimony, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God."Leviticus 26:46 "These are the decrees, the laws and the regulations that the LORD established on Mount Sinai between himself and the Israelites through Moses."Numbers 9:1 "The LORD spoke to Moses in the Desert of Sinai in the first month of the second year after they came out of Egypt. He said, (2) 'Have the Israelites celebrate the Passover at the appointed time. (3) Celebrate it at the appointed time, at twilight on the fourteenth day of this month, in accordance with all its rules and regulations.'"What I'm saying is that it would be absolutely rediculous for even the most devout Bible-thumper to believe that every single word in the entire Bible is directly from the mouth of God, or even that every word is inspired by God. Look at Esther ... the original text had to be editted to even refer to God.IMHO, the insistence by some folks that "the entire Bible is the Word of God" is just another example of the human inability to thankfully and graciously accept things for the way they are. It's a real sickness that has and continues to cause great heartache and mental illness. Good enough just ain't good enough for psychotics I guess.Peace in the Pituitary.

The Inerrancy of the BibleThat seems pretty clear to me.This site explains the interpretation of "inspired" and "inerrant". BTW, they don't like to use the term "literal", since that is misinterpreted, as shown in the post above.My point was that without making such a claim of inspiration, there is no real basis for any consistent view of Jesus, other than he was just a man. Any reader of the Bible can pick and choose which miracles (as stated in the Bible) to believe in, or else you interpret words to stretch the meaning (like "day" equals "thousands of years"). And, then what is faith really based on, if not the Bible? Gut feeling? The Wonder of it all? (see the Faith threads if you want to pursue that line).ID is trying to rationalize the old Earth very-convincing evidence with the Bible.

At best.

It astonishes me when I see claims like this from Christians. When I was a Christian I always thought the biggest and most significant part of the whole deal was the Personal Relationship With God. Christians don't need the bible, they don't need the church and they don't need priests to know what to think. They can just pray and ask God himself.[This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 02-12-2004]

Yes they do. They are called "Christ - ians" for a reason. If you don't believe Jesus was the son of God, I don't see how you can call yourself a Christian. God, Jesus, Holy Spirit are all fundamental to the faith.

Your answer really doesn't make any sense unless the Bible is Christ. Read the quotes here and think for a second. If the Bible is not Christ, your answer is pretty ridiculous.Did you read MrJack's statement? He said if you can have a personal relationship with God, then why should you have to ask the Bible if Jesus is the Christ, when you can ask God himself. Your answer ignores his statement, and simply asserts that the only way to know Jesus is the Christ is because the Bible says so.It's seems funny to me that people who appeal to the Bible the way you do don't seem to want to listen to it. Have you ever checked on how it says you can recognize he's the Christ?One way is in John 17:20-23. If his disciples are as united as he and the Father are, then the world will know that he's sent by God. Of course, if Christians are the ones who are his disciples, then that test fails at least as bad, and probably worse, than young earth creationism fails when it is tested by what we see around us. It's my impression, however, that his early disciples did a pretty good job of displaying that unity and love, but it's hard to tell 1900 years later, and I know that many would dispute their testimony as well.It seems the best thing of all is if somebody somewhere could prove they were his disciples by their love, and then prove his power by their extraordinary unity, rather than continuing to harp about an inerrant book that has numerous clear contradictions.Another he mentioned is testing a tree by its fruit. Of course, since the fruit to look for is unity and love, that is really the same test.I can't find any requirement that the Bible be the inspired, inerrant Word of God for Jesus to be the Christ.As far as the Scripture you quoted as your proof that the Bible says it's the inspired, inerrant Word of God, that is answered up above. You would have a long, hard, and futile battle to show that there's any good reason for equating the 66 books in your Bible with the Scriptures that were being talked about in 2 Timothy, anyway.

Right, but I don't agree with that. Well, I'm willing to turn to the Bible for that answer, if you are.Paul himself, whose words you want to be inspired and inerrant or useless, said, "My speech and my proclamation was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God."And in case you don't want to equate "the wisdom of man" with relying on Paul's words rather than his power, he adds, just a few verses later, "For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power."So somewhere it would be nice if someone has some power to point to, so that we didn't have just men's words to rely on, or even just words from the Bible. Notice that the Scriptures say that man lives by the words which once proceeded from the mouth of God, but by the words which proceed (currently, now, ongoing) from his mouth. Those who rely solely on the Bible have no power, because they're STARVING.One more.How do you know what's true today? According to the Bible again, it is not by the Bible. It is by the anointing that comes from God (1 Jn 2:20,27). You can call it a gut feeling if you want, but it's the Bible that attaches so much importance to it. Those who are led by the Spirit are the sons of God, says the Bible, not those who are led by the Bible.Finally, what is the pillar and support of the Truth? According to the Bible, it is not the Bible. It is the church, the gathering of those who have that anointing I just mentioned. The church (the household of God, as the Bible says there) is the pillar and support of the truth (1 Tim 3:15).Hope that helps.

Those definitions don't specifically reference the Bible, but without the Bible what else would be convincing enough for those beliefs?I know that the definition varies among dictionaries. And, the above and more focus on the cloudy issues can be found at (note the name):
WHO IS A CHRISTIAN?TruthLover, I do not want to get into the many interpretations of the Bible, which clearly you are doing. I do not have a vested interest to continue that debate. However, it once again demonstrates why we have so many churches and people that preach different interpretations, and (more to the point) why some accept evolution, some accept creationism, and some accept something else.In our discussions for the whole Evo vs Cre debate, it is important to attach as specific a meaning to words as we can. This is the same problem with Creationists using the ill-defined term "kinds" instead of species or some other classification.So many discussions broadly address a large group of people called Christians, but the point does not always hold to a broad meaning of a "kind" of believer.
Maybe the Admins can post "for the forum" definitions for:
- persons who believe the Bible to be inerrant (literal, except in obvious cases in scripture
- persons who believe most of the Bible, except for Genesis and the Flood accounts (and maybe some others, but those are pertinent to the forum)
- persons who do not believe that Jesus is "the way", but believe in GodI think we understand the meanings for Atheists, Agnostics, Jews, Muslims (if "extremists" only apply to the terrorist interpretations)

That's the verse I meant and it certainly doesn't say that the entire Bible is absolutely true.Firstly it doesn't identify what is and is not scripture - and neither does the rest of the Bible (and since 2 Timothy is probably pseudonymous there's a real question as to whether it should be counted as scripture itself).And it certainly doesn't say whether it means that every word must be taken as absolute truth or whether it refers to the overall message.So interpeeting it as saying that the Bible as we have it is true in every detail is going way beyond what the verse really says.

The argument is based on a "chain reaction" of sorts.
If Timothy is inspired, then its references to other scripture must also be true. And, those references to other scripture must be true, etc. Pretty soon, the whole Bible as we know it is included. If I'm not mistaken, some books were weeded out during the compilation stage of scripture. I'll let the fundamentalist Christians provide the details if you want more info on it.That's the line of reasoning taught to me.

A chain reaction of assumptions.2 Timothy DOESN'T tell us that *it* is inspired - that is an assumptionIt doesn't tell us exactly what other scripture is referred to - more assumptionsAnd it doesn't tell us that "inspired" is equivalent to inerrancy - in fact it clearly stops short of making that claim.

There is also the issue of exactly what 2Tim says. The Greek words translated "All scripture..." are "Pas Graphe..." which means all things writtenDocBill has an interesting page on this topic on his website.http://www.sun-day-school.us/inspiration.html

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

How many times are you going to ask this question and ignore the answers you have received to it?You clearly have no intentions of listening to the responses to you, which should answer your own concern: "However, it once again demonstrates why we have so many churches and people that preach different interpretations, and (more to the point) why some accept evolution, some accept creationism, and some accept something else."Right, people like you guarantee this will always be the case. Some accept evolution, because they are willing to pay attention to the evidence and care what is actually true. Some accept creationism, because they have their eyes and ears closed, and some accept other things, mostly because they like to argue.That's my take on it.By the way, your appeal to more knowledgeable Christians to explain something to PaulK was a waste of time. He was already trying to explain the subject to you, so he hardly needs someone to explain it to him. If you would have listened to him, you wouldn't need to be calling for someone else to explain.