Bible: Word of God or Not

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.

Just as laws said to come from God ratify understandings that already exist in that human society.___

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

quote:

---

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.

---

But you need to understand whether you are basing your inferences on something known or something assumed. You seem to be inferring from an assumption, not something known.So which inference is going to be more reliable?
One from an assumption or one from something known?ABE:

quote:

---

As I said, if God were to make HImself known concretely and for all to see, we would have no need for faith.

---

We would no longer need faith (belief not based on proof) but we would have faith (confidence, reliance, loyalty, trust).Edited by purpledawn, : Added thought

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

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?

Again, that will depend on what you mean by "Perfect."GOD, if GOD exists, would most likely be complete. If, as the Bible says GOD created everything, then, as the Bible also says, GOD created good and evil.But what does this have to do with the Bible being the "Word of GOD"; whatever that phrase means?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Is God under any compulsion to be "fair"? And why would He think more of those who blindly accept what their parents blindly accepted, than He thinks of those who question Him and still choose to follow His message?The sermon is more important than the preacher. The message is more important than the messenger.If there is a God, then maybe the Bible contains a message from Him, even if not in His exact words. If He went to the trouble to send us a message, don't you think He was putting more emphasis on the message than on Himself?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

In Message 189 you presented that salvation is the overall message of the Bible and that message is a reason if not your reason and evidence that the Bible is the word of God. Others have disagreed that the salvation you speak of is the overall message.In Message 255 your response to ReverendDG

quote:

---

ReverendDG writes:

​

but my question is, were in the bible does it say god created us perfect, within the OT mainly.
the whole fall thing as far as i can tell, is just inferred from the text and puffed up from outside the bible

You are right, I can not find a place where it literally says that.

---

You've stated that you rely on inferences. You said that inferences could carry a lot of weight, but the example you give: I feel is an assumption. God only needs to be more powerful and know more than we do. God may be complete (perfect) but the OT doesn't show a God who doesn't make mistakes or who doesn't change his mind, which you apparently consider to be flaws.So the question was: Which inference is going to be more reliable (or more weighty)?
One from an assumption or one from something known?I don't see that the "message" that we need to be saved from a fallen nature is clearly supported by the OT. So it is difficult to see the salvation message you described as a strong basis for accepting the Bible as the word of God. While it may be a good reason for you, you haven't made a strong case that let's others see that possibility.

quote:

---

I see we have a semanticist!

​

assume; to take for granted without actual proof ...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?

---

Did I disagree with your definition? Faith has a couple of meanings which was the point of my statement. We may not need to believe without proof, but we can still have faith.How is that unfair? The Hebrews supposedly had proof. It's just a different kind of faith.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

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.

Actually, yes it does.The issue though is "Bible: Word of God or Not" and to determine that, we really need to know what the phrase "Word of God" means.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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?

Anastasia, yes the Bible says this in several places. Sounds like a good topic to start if you want to learn more. You can go read the apologetics on this subject, if you are into mental and linguistic contortions.However that does not mean it is not necessarily the "word of god". I believe the Bible is not the word of God as it is inconsistent in the revelation and application of ethical principles . The only consistency is that the ethical principles demonstrated are relative to the prevailing culture. In the OT these ethical principles are very ethnocentric and are similar to what one would find in a chimpanzee troupe or street gang. Jar a definition was provided, as far as the purposes of this topic goes, way back. I would suspect that this definition would satisfy both Anastasia and Purpledawn.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.