Bible: Word of God or Not

I am genuinely curious and have a question for those who believe the bible is true, reliable and the word of God:

What is the single most compelling reason or piece of evidence that leads you to conclude that the bible is the "word of god".

​

Alternately for those that have studied and considered this question and have concluded otherwise:

​

What is the single most compelling reason or piece of evidence that leads you to conclude that the bible is not the "word of god".

​

I specifically did not state infallible or inerrant so as not to get hung up on those definitions.

​

Try to keep to a single point, which I know is difficult since sometimes corroborating and the quantity of evidence is significant in forming an opinion.

One thought for you to consider.Examples of coincidence happen. Remarkable coincidences sometimes lead folks to claims psychic or spiritual phenomena. Carl Jung compiled thousands of accounts of coincidences and other supposedly anomalous phenomena. I believe they can be explained via statistics.The tricky aspect of statistics and human coincidences was powerfully demonstrated with the Bible Code debacle. The author of the Bible Code thought he was really on something finding such amazing coincidences and description of historical events thru manipulation of the text of the Bible.It never occurred to him (i guess) that the same amazing coincidences might occur with any text, the degree depends on the mechanism of the language you are working with. Others have taken Moby Dick and pulled insight and description of historical events from the text.Consider the coincidence you mentioned.Noah or Noach has several meanings "peaceful", "long-lived", "comforter", "wanderer"Noah - Name Meaning, What does Noah mean?Teshuvah also has several meanings "Return", "Repentance", "Turning"Now consider the scripture quoted: These two people are your salvation? This doesn't fit or work out - in fact, could even be considered heresy!!You have applied some very loose rules and pulled out of it some wonderous sign. These things happen all the time because events are happening all the time and statistics will inform that you will encounter, on average, a certain number of "coincidences".The looser the rules the more often they happen.

Roger that!

NJ this is a bit over the top. Are you saying that the bible has been under attack since the books were canonized?Many Muslims would say the same for the Koran - that their book has stood the flames and stands out unscathed - the Holy Word of God. Perhaps true of any scripture whose followers make claims of being God derived and damnation awaits those who do not buy in. If Plato claimed God inspired his writing and that you must believe or else... He would have also received special consideration. Sure their is valid history in the bible. The most severe critic would grant you ground here. In the realm of descibing the natural world beyond what was understood at the time? it fails understandably and completely.

I do not believe the bible is the “word of god”.Note to jar: this phrase is purposefully left undefined so as not to exclude people such as yourself with a unique view on the bible.I was tempted to cheat and add that my number one reason was the preponderance of evidence such as scientific invalidity, failed prophecies, contradictions, rehash of prior myths, edited passages, etc. but thought better and kept it short. Oh my, I did just cheat didn't I .My number one reason for dismissing the bible as the “Word of God” is that it is internally inconsistent. This is expected in a compilation of books from various sources and written over a period where cultural norms changed and mans understanding increased.Interesting, I arrived at this conclusion by considering the opposite claim. The claim is often stated something like this: Is it "amazing consistent"? One could write a book about the inconsistencies, I only have a short space before boring any reader so I will be brief.

Commandment number 7 “Do not Murder”. God himself commands ethnic genocide and even punishes some for not follow the commands to the letter.

quote:

---

Numbers 31:17-18 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

​

Samuel 15:2-3 Thus says The Lord of hosts, 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way, when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have; do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and suckling

---

​

There is more along these lines. I know I don't have God's long term view but in my fallen state I view killing babies and sucklings as murder. But why does God require his children to get blood on their hands why can't he just call in pestilence or a famine on the human vermin. How does this fit with the redemption of mankind.

​

Compare “life for life, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” with “Turn the other cheek”.

​

Consider the evolving view of the afterlife. OT paints a picture of a shadowy existence in a great cavern under the earth, called Sheol. This view was similar to the surrounding contemporary cultures. But slowly the concept of paradise evolves to where there are streets of gold and walls made out of precious stones and huge peals. The Muslims evolved this further and added sensory pleasures.

​

Compare “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” to

quote:

---

Ex. 15:3 The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name

​

Ps. 24:8 The Lord strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle.

​

Psalms 137:9 How blessed will be the one who grabs your babies and smashes them on a rock!

---

​

I could go on, but perhaps the most powerful statement of the inconsistency of the bible is the great number of divisions that exists within the faith. If there was a consistent theme you would see that consistency in the beliefs of the followers who claim it is the "Word of God". You would also see consistency thru the ages.

​

In this respect the Christian faith is not different than any other major religion. Perhaps religion is a curious habit of the human mind.

​

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

​

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

You may be up there with the best spinmeisters. Can you expand just how the command to kill infants (beings made in the image of God) and the command “thou shall not murder” is consistent? Try any shade of gray you like. True. It would be silly for us to place any limits. Take this a little further and we should also consider this being "That which created the universe" maybe not be GOOD in any sense we humans might think of as good. There is the possibility that God exists and he is one nasty evil being, plays favorites, is arbitrary and enjoys torturing his creation.The criterion of consistency is an implied assumption. There may be some evidence for this position since the physical laws that describe nature are seemingly consistent and unchanging. Why not moral or ethical laws?What is meant by the "Word of God"? Whatever it means to you. Thanks for your definition. However, I would exclude your last bullet: That would be the weakest definition of the "word of god". Jim Jones honestly believed he was inspired by God, is he a prophet?

I agree with your analogy. Well put. Nope just trying to understand Gods justice. I believe justice requires consistency in definition and application. I have several issues with this:

How are the unborn, infants and small children unrighteous? One explanation is that various ethnic groups are unrighteous from the git-go. If your tribe ended in an "ite" you are pretty much marked for righteous slaughter.

​

However we know that is not necessarly true since in some cases the young virgin girls were allowed to be kept, for righteous reasons i am sure.

​

Also a very major issue is that God did not do the killing but commanded the killing. Evidently this actual exercise in righteous killing of sucklings and women with child, by the righteous people of god was a step in man’s eventual redemption.

​

The commandment is variously interpreted from kill to murder, but none I have seen say as you do "Do not kill unrighteous". Would be nice if there were a few footnotes on the tablets.

Hmmm. I suppose you need to define "illegal killing". Genocide is straightforward. Are you saying the genocide is not illegal as long as you are pretty sure God is sanctifying it.I would assume that if God want to kill a group of people he could do that on is own. Therefore, I would discount a commandment to commit genocide as from somewhere else but from the creator of the universe, regardless of your definition of the cliche "Word of God".I am just glad I didn’t make the quoted statement, or have to defend it or justify it into a rational worldview. You are putting limits on God, the very same thing you criticized me for. Why can't god be pure evil? Why can't God be pure good? Or maybe completely detached and uncaring. Perhaps. My working assumption is that God's laws are not situational. If Gods laws transform with the times it would seem that canonization of a body of works would be a very wrong thing to do - in which case the “Word of God” would have very little meaning or value, since the historical documents would only describe the virtue of the day.I did neglect a definition, here is my level best:The "Word of God" must be a little stricter than the "Thoughts of God".The "Word of God" implies that the ideas contained in each sentence and each paragraph must be perfect and from God. For example the actual words vary from translation to translation but the ideas are from God in terms of doctrine, principle and precept.Furthermore to distinguish the "Word of God" from the "Word of Man" it should be more perfect than human minds could possibly have created. It should be above human wisdom and intellect.Here are others attempts:define:Word of God - Google SearchEdited by iceage, : No reason given.Edited by iceage, : speling mistake

Iano we are getting far off the issue. My point is the "Bible is not consistent" and therefore is not the "Word of God". We are not talking about the state of fallen creatures. Wow! I could spend some time with the above, but I will pass. If the taking and raping of young women is not a sin then what is left on the table. Yes but he commanded others to do the job for him and in doing so required his subjects to violate a commandment. That is an inconsistency. The Commandment should read "Do not Murder - unless you get an inspiration from God to do so"

Again I am not calling God a murder or questioning God's authority.I am saying that the scriptural events described are flagrantly inconsistent. This leads me conclude that these literal works are not the "Word of God".Putting this together with the concept of God commanding genocide and sanctioning godly rape, I would say the indicators are obvious - like ten feet high in flames - obvious.I noticed in the discussions by both you and jar, you tip toe around the idea of godly ordained rape. In addition, you are reluctant to consider the ordeal of requiring someone to put a women and her unborn child to the sword. Since you believe in the trinity - does your mental vision of Christ allow you to believe Christ would command this and point the way to the Amalek (to be quaint WWJD).As you pointed out earlier Excellent point!We are talking about the "Creator of the Universe and everything in it", from the complexity and intricacies of life to the grandeur of the galaxies.With this in mind do the following passages sound like this Supreme Being or more like a Bronze Age warrior general inciting his tribes to war? using God for justification and rape as a motivator. Still holding the thought of God’s Grandeur in mind, If God thought it was best to terminate the Amalek do think God could do it on his own. The callousness towards human life displayed in these passages accurately reflects the cultural norms of day. One can find all sorts of similar ancient writings that have such an edge. One can find a very similar thoughts working evil in the Middle East today. I see nothing sacred here let alone the "Word of God".Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

If the very interesting fact in this discussion is that God is allegedly only commanding that unrighteous people be killed. As you said earlier God, the creator of the universe, the one who “laid the foundation of the earth” and who supposedly set into motion the complexities of life in span of a few days. Why do you think God requires others to do the dirty deed? Is he incapable? Is this part of mans redemption? Maybe this was a purifying act.Do you think it is more probable that these are the thoughts and words of a warrior tribe involved in sectarian warfare in a area with limited resources? Hmmmm.The interesting part is that if I where to show this example to a Muslim or Hindu I would get a strong agreement. It is easy to recognize these when you view it from an outside perspective. If I were then to point similar inconsistencies within their body of scripture they would proceed along a similar path and abuse definitions and logic to make things work out. No! we cannot dismiss Genocide! And that is the source of the inconsistency. The “holy scriptures” writes that God is only an accessory - the tribe of Moses is guilty of genocide and that is counter to his law that was written in stone by the finger of God!You are saying that “Do Not Murder” commandment has an asterisk “Unless God tells you to and the subject is unrighteous in which case it is not Murder . oh BTW you are all unrighteous”.If the Mosaic prohibition against killing signifies nothing more than “Do not kill righteous people,” then it is a useless tautology allowing any kind of killing in the name of God or the Bible. You are not alone in your inspired definitions, as history has given us some nice examples as evidenced by centuries of religious wars and persecutions.I will respond on your comments of what is and what is not rape later. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.Edited by iceage, : comment on holy rape of the unrighteous later

I was asking what you mean be inception. For example after the works were written, were edited (and they were edited), or after the works were canonized. Keep in mind canonization was a process of "withering criticism". Since you did not define your reasons I assume you mean because they are written words that some claim to be the "Word of God"The point is that any book making such a audacious, perhaps blasphemous, claim such as it is the "Word of God" it is going to receive a measure of scrutiny.The bible is not special as the Koran has received its own “withering criticism”. Also note the primary criticism of both the Bible and Koran is not its historicity but it veracity.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Yes is does attempt the describe the natural world! Hence all the confusion concerning the reality of the creation, flood, rainbow, babel, etc. Those are all attempts to describe the world. They are myths to help answer the question were we came from and world we live in. They were written by people that prossessed the prevailing contemporary understanding of the natural world at the time.

There are plenty of instances where the bible decribes God using his supernatural powers (getting his hands dirty as you described) when dealing with men.For example, Pharaoh (several times), The flood (opening up the flood gates), Joshua (stopping the sun), Moab (23k killed), Ananias (falls down dead). I can come up with more if these are insufficient. The above is a probable source of the words. We dealing with words of men not God. The problem i have is the "instructing others to kill" goes against his earlier commandment - an internal inconsistency. In fact, you used the word "kill" which is very word used by KJV.

quote:

---

in·con·sis·ten·cy (noun)
A marked lack of correspondence or agreement: difference, disagreement, discrepance, discrepancy, disparity, gap, incompatibility, incongruity. See agree/disagree.

---

Perhaps it is not our position to question God but it is our position to question if a proposed religious work is the "Word of God".To falsely credit God as the doer of some ignoble act due to lack of study and honest evaluation would be blasphemy - No?Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

We have made some progress!We can both conclude that we don't know why God did not use supernatural powers and smite these evil doers and save his children from having to experience ripping open women to be sure any fetuses were dead. We know God had no problem using such powers (such as stopping the rotation of the earth) before and after.Maybe these were faith-building opportunities.This was either one of those unfathomable mysteries of God or the normal everyday run-of-the-mill military tactics of a people conditioned to such mores of the day. I vote for the later.And these events did set a precedence, which we saw repeated thru the centuries. Any guy in authority wearing robes and telling you God has commanded you forth to kill - you can safely ignore the Commandment written by the finger of God. Bible believer Truthlover eagerly pointed this out earlier that if your government commands you to genocide and rape it is ok.Your analogy fails in that it involves sensory perception (ie "I am being directed into by the policeman"}. God also thought highly of sensory input as he carved "Thou Shall Not Murder" with his finger on solid rock, as we are told.These scorched earth events were cultural norms and your "Word of God" story book describes the exact same attitude as other written and pictorial works of the era. Nothing extraordinary. This why I place these writings in the same category and the Iliad and not the thoughts of a God who obviously exceeds his creation in everyway imaginable.Since this ordering of men into genocide based on a message or vision from God happens quite frequently and this is an inconsistency to his terse Commandment, how do we know which is false and which is true?

Actually working thru this example has only "strength my faith" that these events and words are anything but from God. Thank you.Yes, in the last post i strayed from the inconsistent/consistent theme because I felt providing good probable support for the sources of the events, help explain why they are inconsistent and are the words of men. Remember the topic is why you believe this book is the "Word of God" or not.So to sum up....

I believe these words are internally inconsistency because the written-in-stone command was terse and to the point and without qualification. The acts describe thereafter go counter to the direct command and significantly contridict to what Jesus taught.

​

You believe that God gave some commands and then ordered some follow on commands, less formally, that qualified those commands - all consistently.

​

Agree?

​

Unfortunately many historical leaders picked up on your point and not mine This I believe is fruit of the ambiguousness.