Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
29 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,271 Year: 22,307/19,786 Month: 870/1,834 Week: 370/500 Day: 3/66 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 2241 (699191)
05-15-2013 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zift Ylrhavic Resfear
05-15-2013 4:17 PM


So, is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men?
I would say it doesn't really matter.

We know that men wrote the words, whether or not they were inspired by God is a little short on data.

I mean, even if it was god's exact words, just how far are you going to believe them?

Well, there are some things in there that we know are wrong, so, even if we thought God said them we still shouldn't believe them.

That's why i think using the bible as an absolute truth isn't good. The humanity at this time wasn't ready to accept new ways of thinking, and even now, when one of the key point of the science is to question everything, it is still hard for a new theory to be accepted, so how could God reach us if he didn't play our game and do as if we were right?

A God that has the power to create the entire Universe should not have any problem with making humanity ready to accept new ways of thinking.

the ten commandment (is it how they're called in english?)

Yes.

Maybe we should try to do a new conduct code, that would be accepted by everyone, believer or non believer. God said to love each other, wasn't it because he wanted us to live in peace? If he truly cares about us, then he would rather have us do it without believing in him than not doing it but believing in him.
My point here is to try to spread his word even if he doesn't take the credit for it. And you have to admit, even if it is the words of men, it doesn't mean our life wouldn't be better if everybody were following it.

I don't really care much about the Old Testament, but I think Jesus' philosophy was good.

Edited by AdminPhat, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zift Ylrhavic Resfear, posted 05-15-2013 4:17 PM Zift Ylrhavic Resfear has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Thugpreacha, posted 05-15-2013 7:21 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply
 Message 17 by Zift Ylrhavic Resfear, posted 05-30-2013 1:49 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 2241 (700137)
05-30-2013 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Zift Ylrhavic Resfear
05-30-2013 1:49 PM


A God that has the power to create the entire Universe should not have any problem with making humanity ready to accept new ways of thinking.

I think the problem was our low scientific developpement at the time.

How many of us can actually picture the distance of 1 000 km in their head? 100 000 km? 1 light year?

At the time of JC, no man would have been able to even imagine or understand such numbers. How many years do we teach our children to have a basic knowledge? How many more year would it have taken to teach to somebody needing to do essential work like farming or fishing every day and already with a different way of thinking? Then how much time to teach to everybody, with the limited means of the time?

No time at all. For an omnipotent god that created the universe that would just be the snap of a finger.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Zift Ylrhavic Resfear, posted 05-30-2013 1:49 PM Zift Ylrhavic Resfear has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 277 of 2241 (738624)
10-13-2014 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Faith
10-12-2014 2:46 PM


Re: 3 in one
False religions, cults, the ponderings of single individuals with an axe to grind all interpreting the Bible for themselves, against the long history of the understanding of the best of the best being validated by hundreds of churches before it's made dogma, all that testifies that there is no one right and true theology? The devil pokes a few unstable people in the ribs and says "invent a religion" and that's all it takes to defeat the true religion. Unfortunately that is exactly what has happened, you got that right.

Did you just describe the Protestant Reformation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Faith, posted 10-12-2014 2:46 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 2241 (738662)
10-13-2014 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by Faith
10-13-2014 7:50 PM


Re: Review of the False Church of Rome
I consider the mainstream to be the true doctrines that have come down from the early church, that clearly reflect the scriptural record, from the early church Councils to the Reformation.

But then, you can't be using the number of people that you're including to be the volume of the stream, right?

In what sense is it the main stream?

I'm not being snippy. Honestly, how are you measuring it?

Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Faith, posted 10-13-2014 7:50 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Faith, posted 10-14-2014 1:24 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 302 of 2241 (738678)
10-14-2014 9:43 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Percy
10-14-2014 7:06 AM


Re: Review of the False Church of Rome
You can't base arguments upon myths and legends.

Shit, Darth Vader could totally kick Godzilla's ass.

With Midi-chlorian levels that high, even if he couldn't just force throw him back into the ocean, he could at least force choke the atomic breath out of him.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Percy, posted 10-14-2014 7:06 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 303 of 2241 (738679)
10-14-2014 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 298 by Thugpreacha
10-14-2014 6:27 AM


Re: Are you sure you're mainstream?
Mainstream, by my definition, is other people whom I would feel in communion with on a spiritual level.

That is simply not what "Mainstream" means.

Its the thing that has the most people involved in it, like the main stream is the one with the most water in it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Thugpreacha, posted 10-14-2014 6:27 AM Thugpreacha has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 310 of 2241 (738698)
10-14-2014 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by Faith
10-14-2014 1:24 PM


Re: Review of the False Church of Rome
What's wrong with tracing the mainstream through the doctrinal history?

Mainstream means "most popular".

What you are calling mainstream is not the most popular.

So how are you measuring it as being the mainstream?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Faith, posted 10-14-2014 1:24 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Faith, posted 10-14-2014 1:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 337 of 2241 (738733)
10-14-2014 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by Faith
10-14-2014 6:11 PM


Re: Are you sure you're mainstream?
Even though the majority of its doctrines and practices are clearly anything but Christian and I showed that,...

You didn't show that,

I did show it Percy, I showed how known Catholic practices violate known Bible doctrine.

What you showed was that you are assuming that everything that violates what you consider to be known Bible doctrine is what determines what you're considering to be not Christian.

By "assuming" I mean taking it for granted as being the position that you provided an argument for.

Right?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Faith, posted 10-14-2014 6:11 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 341 by Faith, posted 10-14-2014 9:11 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 437 of 2241 (739087)
10-20-2014 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 435 by Faith
10-20-2014 3:22 AM


God couldn't possibly inspire the scriptures and they not be inerrant.

Just how impotent is this god you believe in?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by Faith, posted 10-20-2014 3:22 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 445 of 2241 (739125)
10-20-2014 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by herebedragons
10-20-2014 12:37 PM


Re: Inspiration and the nature of God
A lot of the OT laws were designed to deal with situations that commonly arose in that tribal context.

And yet when I point that out, you claim that it is every bit as relevant to our society today and we need to understand it through a plain, simple reading.

Just how inerrant the Bible is depends on the point the proponent is making at that time

It ebbs and flows with the needs of the person making the claim.

Sometimes its really really inerrant, and other times its just a little bit inerrant.

Fun game though, no?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by herebedragons, posted 10-20-2014 12:37 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 448 of 2241 (739135)
10-20-2014 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 447 by GDR
10-20-2014 3:40 PM


Re: Inspiration and the nature of God
The thing about Faith's argument is that she has to defend Biblical inerrancy at all costs. It is why I call her faith biblianity as opposed to Christianity. Her faith depends on an inerrant Bible. It is like the bottom card in a house of cards - pull it out and the whole thing comes down as would everything her life is based on.

Exactly.

The retort is usually that if you can't accept all of it as true, then you have to throw all of it out. Otherwise you're just picking and choosing.

But that's bullshit.

Just like I can write: "The sky is green and 2+2=4". The error in one part does not make the other part false as well.

Placing a truth next to a falsehood does not make them both false.

So, with the Bible, we can see truth in there even though we can also see errors in there. Its not all or nothing.

You decided what is true and what is false just like you do for everything else: You compare it to the world around you and see what works and what doesn't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by GDR, posted 10-20-2014 3:40 PM GDR has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 482 of 2241 (739411)
10-23-2014 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 474 by Faith
10-22-2014 2:34 AM


Re: Some sermons on inspiration and inerrancy that back me up
I think PaulK has made a really good point with the opening versus in Luke 1 and that you shouldn't be glossing over it like you have.

Your sermon talks about scripture being "god-breathed", and you are claiming that god sorta "dictated" the scripture to the authors, and that makes what they wrote inerrant.

But if we look at the opening of Luke 1:

quote:
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

The author is explicitly telling us that he researched this stuff himself. He doesn't say anything about god breathing the words into him, or anything that could be construed as being dictated to him.

He says it himself that he researched it.

That is scripture, itself, that contradicts what you say all of scripture is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 474 by Faith, posted 10-22-2014 2:34 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 483 by Faith, posted 10-23-2014 4:29 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 485 of 2241 (739420)
10-23-2014 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 483 by Faith
10-23-2014 4:29 PM


Re: Some sermons on inspiration and inerrancy that back me up
But you've said that Jesus authored the entire Bible and here we have the author of Luke saying that he wrote it based off of the research that he did and not through dictation from God/Jesus.

If what you are claiming is true, then the author of Luke would have started like some of the other books do where they go: "The word of the Lord came to me and said..."

But that's not what the author of Luke said. He said that he carefully investigated it back to the beginning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 483 by Faith, posted 10-23-2014 4:29 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by Faith, posted 10-23-2014 6:28 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded
 Message 487 by Faith, posted 10-23-2014 6:44 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 494 of 2241 (739465)
10-24-2014 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 487 by Faith
10-23-2014 6:44 PM


Re: Some sermons on inspiration and inerrancy that back me up
Again, the only problem here is your expectation of what inspiration means.

I think its your problem with your expectation of what inspiration means.

I never use the term "dictation" but that's the weird idea you all get and I don't know how to dispel it.

You said that god wrote the Bible through the authors. What word would better describe how he did it?

When an author says that the word of the Lord came to him, why can't the word "dictate" be used to describe that?

And how far off, really, is dictation from "God-breathed"?

I don't think anybody knows exactly how God inspired all the writers of the Biblical books, but we know He did.

Rather than knowing it, you believe it on faith, but let's not waste time bickering about that.

You are making a false distinction based on how the writers came by their knowledge.

And you are falsly making all inspriration to be too similiar.

The Bible clearly and explicitly makes a distinction between the way that, say, the author of Ezekiel was inspired (see chapter 21:1 for example) and how the author of Luke was inspired.

Ezekiel says that the word of the Lord came to him. Luke says that he investigated the history of the events.

Those two authors claim very different ways in which they acquired the knowledge that they recorded.

You don't have an explanation for why they are so different and it contradicts what you have been saying in this thread.

All the gospel writers are considered to have been inspired in their writings. Matthew Mark and John had lived through the events but also made use of other written materials; Luke learned about the events from interviewing the people who had lived through them. The source of the knowledge has nothing to do with whether the writing was inspired or not.

Oh okay. But that is just you using your theology to guide your interpretation of the Bible. You've already decided that Luke was inspired just like the rest of them, so when presented with the verses that show that it was different, all you can do is stand by your original position and re-interpret and twist what the author of Luke said so that it fits within what you already believe.

That's not you deriving your theology from the Bible, that's you deriving your interpretation of the Bible from your theology.

How can you not see yourself doing this?

The source of the knowledge has nothing to do with whether the writing was inspired or not.

Hang on, obviously God has to be the source of the knowledge for it to be inspired, no?

Where does the author of Luke say anything about God being the source of his knowledge?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 487 by Faith, posted 10-23-2014 6:44 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by Faith, posted 10-24-2014 10:16 AM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 499 by NoNukes, posted 10-24-2014 11:47 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 498 of 2241 (739476)
10-24-2014 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 495 by Faith
10-24-2014 10:16 AM


Re: Some sermons on inspiration and inerrancy that back me up
Scripture says they were "moved by the Holy Spirit."

Are you talking about 2 Peter 1?

Verses 19-21:

quote:
19 We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.

21 For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.


If we compare that to Luke 1:

quote:
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us,

2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,

4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.


We can see that the description Peter uses, that prophecy never had its origin in the human will, does not fit with how the author of Luke claims he got his information, because he says that it did have its origin in the human will, i.e. he researched the history himself.

So, either Peter's qualitifaction for what is prophecy does not apply to the book of Luke, or the book of Luke is not prophecy.

Only the prophets used that phrase but all the writers are considered to have been inspired.

So then, there are two things: Scripture and prophecy, right?

And they are both "inspired", whatever that means.

Are their inspirations different or the same?

When it is said that God preserved every word they wrote it isn't meant to imply something as direct as dictation as I understand it, just that when they wrote it they were moved to use words that said exactly what He wanted them to say.

What is the qualitative difference between "saying exactly what He wanted them to say" and "He dictated to them what to say"?

There's a minor difference, perhaps, in how the author "heard" what to write, but the end result is the same, no?

I don't know but dictation would only apply if they were writing at the moment they got the information which I don't think was ever the case.

Then allow some leeway in what is meant by "dictation". Or we can try to find a better word.

Luke got his knowledge from the eyewitnesses, he was also an eyewitness himself at times on the trail with Paul as he describes in Acts; other gospel writers were eyewitnesses and used each other's writings to fill in the blanks as well. To believe all this is inspired is simply to believe that God guided and protected the writing of it, which is apart from how the knowledge was acquired.

Can you accept that the above is quite different from: "Jesus wrote the Bible"?

The difference you make between how Ezekiel and Luke were inspired isn't a difference in how they were inspired in the writing of their text but a difference in how they learned what they learned.

Okay, but I contend that "how they learned what they learned" is actually "how they were inspired" so there actually is a difference between the two authors.

we do not know HOW God inspired the scripture, that isn't revealed to us, but we know that it is, not just by blind faith because we've been told it's inspired, but by various qualities of the scripture itself, such as the fact that every word has important implications for doctrine.

Interesting. So with Leviticus 11:20:

quote:
20 “‘All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be regarded as unclean by you.

What is the important implications for doctrine in stating that flying insects only have four legs instead of the six legs that we can see them having?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by Faith, posted 10-24-2014 10:16 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 500 by PaulK, posted 10-24-2014 11:48 AM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019