Then, I point out the verse (2 Tim 3:16) that Christian scholars claim. You and some others may interpret it differently, but that fact remains: that verse is what establishes authority for millions in this country.
Right, and it's been pointed outseveral times that it's not a very convincing verse. To jump from "all Scripture" to the current Bible of the Protestants (rather than that of the Catholics, Orthodox, Church of the East, or Ethiopian Orthodox church, which are all different) is a big jump. To jump from "is breathed by God" to "is inerrant" is another big jump. To jump from "profitable for reproof, rebuke, correction, and instruction in righteousness" to "profitable for science and history" is another big jump. And to jump from "profitable for reproof, rebuke, correction, and instruction in righteousness" to "establishes authority" is another big jump.
In the end, I feel quite justified in saying that the Bible never says it is the Word of God, and I do admit that there are a lot of people who have been told all their life that the Bible is the Word of God, and those people use 2 Tim 3:16 as their main justification for that. However, 2 Tim 3:16 did not convince them or you that the Bible was the Word of God. They were told by their church that the Bible is the Word of God, and they (and you) use 2 Tim 3:16 afterward to justify it, because 2 Tim 3:16 just doesn't say that, so they'd never get it from it .
You say they can't, and then I produce a website that explains the fundamentalist point of view.
Wow.
I'm stunned.
I tell people that evangelicals act like this, and they say, "Really, they do?" Yes, and here it is, admitted--in pretty decent words, too.
I say people can't tell me where the Bible says it's the Word of God. You provide a web site explaining that fundamentalist believe it is the Word of God.
I didn't ask for a description of fundamentalist beliefs. I asked for verses that say the Bible is the Word of God. You'd think that something so central would be mentioned repeatedly, but you can only produce one verse and that requires five unjustified logical jumps (given above) to draw the conclusions fundamentalists draw from it.
Your web site lists some others, but of course those others say things like "The words of the Lord are pure words." Shoot, I believe that. However, how does that verse suggest in any way that the words of the Lord are confined to what's in the Bible? Acts 1:8 that they mention says that the apostles will be his witnesses. How does that suggest that the Bible is the Word of God.
In fact, let's consider that. If what they mean is that the apostles would be able to speak the Word of God, then how come only Peter, Paul, and John got letters into the New Testament? What happened to the other nine? Clearly the Word of God is not limited to the Bible, because at least nine other producers of it are not represented there?
Then you have to deal with Stephen and Philip, who also proclaimed the Word of God, and we're missing most of their words.
Your web site has no verses that even hint that the Word of the God and the Bible are synonomous.
It certainly doesn't imply direct dictation and it is not sensible to read the Bible as if God was the actual author.
You said I wrote this, and then you said I was putting words in your mouth. I didn't write this; MrJack did.
Clearly, you and PaulK do not know scripture as well as fundamentalists, or you would have known these things, which have been postulated for decades
How about the possibility that we're simply not as gullible as the fundamentalists, and we're not forced to swallow what they are. After all, we do know these things. You've told us nothing new. "Knowing" them and "believing" them are two different things.
Maybe you could give some good reason for agreeing with the fundamentalists, rather than just telling me what they believe, which I already know. I assure you it's pretty unlikely that you've talked to as many of them as I have.
The reason I am willing to assert so boldly that there's no verses that say the Bible is the Word of God is that I've already gone through this with the best the fundamentalists have to offer; with people who live and breathe the Bible and base their life on it. They're normally shocked to find out they can't defend it, and they don't like it, but among pastors, authors, Mennonite leaders, home school leaders, house churches, etc., there just isn't anyone who can do much better than throwing out 2 Tim 3:16 or (you haven't tried this yet) listing Scripture quotes that are referred to as the Word of God (there are a couple of those).
There is a line of reasoning that fundamentalists have asked/answered in order to arrive at their conclusion: The Bible is WOG. We may disagree, but they do make the claim, and they do that because they understand that their faith needs an underpinning.
I'm not disputing this. This is the point. They are giving their faith an underpinning, but the Scriptures that they want to underpin their faith with give a different underpinning.
OK. You believe. But on what basis? Blind faith? The Bible?
So glad you asked. I believe the Word of God came to earth and became Jesus because the apostle John said so. It's the faith that has been handed down to me, and it's a very powerful faith that works incredibly well. It causes every branch joined to it to bear much fruit, and it casts out every branch that doesn't. It's really pretty amazing, and I'm astounded every day by its power. Like the believers in Acts, we live in a daily sense of awe.
I notice that you stop short of claiming Jesus died for our sins and is a saviour.
That's because I'm discussing the Word of God with you, not the death of Jesus.
You and others (notably the ID folks) believe in religious positions that are fuzzy. As with creationists, you cannot be pinned down to any consistent position, because there is no firm foundation. It shifts with the arguments.
I don't know why you said this, and I don't believe it's true.
Also, there are no others here that have my religious position.
You seem to claim authority on the subject and think that you've answered the questions, but you and PaulK's ignorance of the WOG matter is glaring to anyone who REALLY understands the reasoning of fundamentalists
I think I've talked to so many fundamentalists and was one so long that generally I understand their reasoning better than they do. Maybe you can tell my why you think I don't.
I have heard the chain of logic from fundamentalists, and while it is certainly questionable, you cannot claim that PaulK "answered the question".
Well, you're right here on one point. I looked back through the thread, and the point you were making hadn't been answered by PaulK. Your point was:
quote:
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.
I suspect PaulK could get this on his own, and I'm sure that I know the compilation process better than 99% of fundamentalists. It's not relevant to this discussion, however.
Maybe now you can see why I don’t think you are answering the questions: because you didn’t answer them!
I looked back through the thread, and I don't see where you even asked a question. Can you tell me what questions you feel are unanswered?
™ Version 4.2