The Bible was NOT man made, it was Godly made

Even if all of your points are true, this does not mean that the Bible is NOT also from God.This thread sets up a false dichotomy: either the Bible is man-made OR it is from God. This is too reductionistic. It is like asking whether Jesus was human or divine. The orthodox Christian position (spelled out at Chalcedon) is that He was both--fully human and fully divine. And the orthodox position on the Bible is that it is also both.

Someone can call anything a "Bible" that he likes, but that doesn't make it so.As you said regarding the nature of Christ, this is a great topic for another thread. The present thread is not about canonicity, but about authorship.

Of course it would. But perhaps this is not what God intended to do? But this relies on lots of assumptions as to what God's love, knowledge, and power should look like.It is easy to set up a straw man and say that because God does not behave this way, He must not exist. (Or because the Bible does not fit our simple picture, it cannot be divine.) But perhaps He DOES exist (and DID author the Bible), yet acts in a much more complex way than we would like to imagine?

Do you really see these as the only two options? This is a version of the classic agnostic fallacy: "If God exists, He will behave in a certain way which I expect and understand. If I don't see this, I will not believe in God."Let's modify your claim:
"Either quantum mechanics makes sense in a human-understandable way or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it cannot be true."Perhaps, in both cases, reality does not follow our intuition or preconceived notions. Rather than insisting a-priori how reality MUST work, we should approach these questions more open-mindedly and investigate to see how it actually DOES work. Without such an approach we will never discover new things, whether in science, theology, or our personal lives.

1) First, it was/is not clear to me that "seeing evidence" is part of the original claim. The OP says merely: This is an assertion, but I don't see any insistence on specific evidence in the first few posts.2) What in the world do you mean that I am "running away from the original claim"?? I have never embraced this claim nor defended it! It is not orthodox Christian doctrine. I disagree with it. The danger is that this is implicitly claiming a-priori what constitutes evidence of divine authorship and what does not. It's virtually the same problem as some of the Intelligent Design (ID) arguments for nature, which rely on assumptions of what God's design must look like. A better approach is to study nature to see what God's design DOES look like rather than imposing a-priori requirements on what it MUST loook like.Likewise, most of the arguments that I've seen here against divine authorship rely on a-priori assumptions of what God's authorship should look like. This is the same fallacy.

Obviously the problem could be with any of the three pieces (sender, channel, or receiver).But isn't the MESSAGE of the Bible relatively clear? What is being argued in this thread is not the message, but the author.

Why make the claim that the photon is a particle? We have lots of evidence that it is a wave. But providing more and more evidence that it is a wave does NOT negate its also being a particle.Likewise, providing evidence that the Bible has human authorship does NOT negate its also being written by God.

I agree with you that if God is trying to communicate with us, at least the major points of His communication should be comprehensible.But I don't see that this implies anything in particular about how He should go about generating this communication, or what specific form this communication should take.

Are the main points necessarily incomprehensible? Isn't it possible that they are comprehensible, but are intentionally ignored or misunderstood? To use your communication system analogy, is it possible that the receiver is filtering out the signal?

Close, except that the photon has ALL of the properties of a particle, and ALL of the properties of a wave. It is fully both.Likewise, orthodox Christianity says that Jesus is both FULLY God and FULLY man. Attempts to limit either nature were declared heresies at Chalcedon.Similarly, the Bible is both FULLY human and FULLY divine according to orthodox Christianity.

So you would make man a deterministic robot, with no free will to ignore God's message? The biblical picture of God's communication is different. Transmission of God's message depends on the willingness (or absence of filtering) of the receiver:

quote:

---

“If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself." -- John 7:17

---

How do you get any of this from what I wrote??I said nothing about determining whether or not the biblical message is accurate; I'm talking about authorship (which is the topic of this thread, BTW).The point is that if someone doesn't want to believe something, they'll "filter it out" and deny it. This is true of biblical authorship as well as of most areas of life. Do you disagree with this?

So I presume you would class Jesus and the NT writers as "fundies"? Because this is exactly what the Jewish leaders in John 7 were doing--denying the revelation of God through Jesus.

Point taken regarding mass. Perhaps I should have used an electron for the analogy rather than a photon?But note that I did NOT claim that photons have all of the properties of "classical particles". You have changed my wording and meaning. I simply said that they have "ALL of the properties of particles." A "classical particle" is an approximation to reality which implicitly excludes wave properties. In other words, a "classical particle" is a particle with added restrictions which are not essential to its nature as a particle. I would disagree that this is an essential property of a "wave". Agreed, but I suspect that the evidence for divine authorship is not strong enough to persuade a hard-core skeptic. If someone is not willing to entertain divine authorship, they will find an alternative explanation which makes them comfortable.

quote:

---

I wrote: Similarly, the Bible is both FULLY human and FULLY divine according to orthodox Christianity.

---

Muslims and Mormons believe that God revealed himself through dictation, with absolutely no human involvement in authorship. This is not orthodox Christianity (though there is one small group of fundamentalist Baptists who hold this view). The orthodox Christian view is that all of the biblical words, phrases, grammar, etc. in the original manuscripts came from the human writers, based on their own cultural backgrounds, yet every word in the original manuscripts is also the inspired word of God. Good questions, but discussions of canon and translations should be in another thread (these topics would quickly derail this thread).