Bible is word of God ...

[CerebralEcstasy]

If, gods exact words to the letter are that of the old testiment, and if Jesus is just god in human form, it stands to reason that the two messages (the exact words used in Jesus' preachings, and the words of the old testiment) should be in the same style and thus subject to the same interpretational rules. However, they are not.

 

Sebby,

 

You might find differences in the interpretation because the old testament was written in Hebrew, whereas the new was written in Greek. The reason for this being that the most common language of the time had switched. This would leave all sorts of words that couldn't be directly translated.

 

On a more personal note, I'm citing my own reasons as to why I consider the bible as the word of God. You may choose to agree, or disagree as you will - but they're mine!!! :naughty:

 

Bible prophecy - points to specific events with respect to the rise and fall of civilizations. The British Museum has a number of artifacts that are spoken of in the bible, as well as the details regarding their demise.

 

Scientifically accurate - (Yes, I know you're all going to jump on me for this one.....) However, Genesis details the creation of the earth, the way the animals appeared on it, and then finally man.

 

All of us here accept that there is an earth, and that plants and animals appeared before men. So in that sense it is accurate.

 

In Genesis, man is said to have been created from the dirt. When we analyze the elemental breakdown of the human body, we find that we are comprised of the same components.

 

Whether you choose to accept the bible as the word of God, or whether you just consider it a good book. It's still one of the most widely published, the most widely discussed.

 

Not to mention the best way to start a fight with someone you don't know *laughs*

[CerebralEcstasy]

There is more evidence for UFOs than there is for god, in which forum do you think claims involving UFOs belong?

 

I think you should ask Tom Cruise about that one.

[CerebralEcstasy]

The first and most serious objection to the Wager should be immediately obvious to anyone who sees it. It argues for belief in a god, but it doesn't offer any advice on which god. There are hundreds, if not thousands - how can I tell which one is the right one?

 

How do we pick the right god out of this multiplicity of deities?

One would think this the reason for the bible would they not?

 

How can we find the right Heaven

Presuming we go to heaven. While I don't want to get into quoting scripture, and being preachy I'll direct your attention to Isaiah 45:18.

 

and avoid the right Hell when there are countless different ones to choose from?

You know my thoughts on hell. The only hell I'm hoping to avoid is the one I'm currently living in.

 

Every time I turn on the news I am taken aback, and in some cases horrified by what I am hearing. Murders, disease, famine, destruction, abuses of all sorts on man, woman, child and animal.

 

If there's a chance for something better - I want a crack at it. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a person - atheist and christian alike who didn't want to see these things ended.

 

 

What if the universalists are right and God does not condemn anyone, but forgives everyone and lets them into Heaven anyway? In that case, atheists have nothing to lose.

 

I cannot speak for the universalists, I can only speak on behalf of what I've read in the bible, point you to the scripture that I believe answer your questions and let you draw your own conclusion.

 

1 Corinthians 6:9 talks about those who wouldn't make the cut, however verse 11 indicates that some of these ones took action and were able to present themselves acceptable in the eyes of God.

 

Hebrews 11:6 - And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

[TheBigDog]

...(the exact words used in Jesus' preachings, and the words of the old testiment) should be in the same style and thus subject to the same interpretational rules. However, they are not.

Did it ever occur to you that language changes over time? This is seen with the debates over the meaning of the US Constitution after just a couple hundred years. Now replace that with thousands of years instead, and written in varying native languages. The fact that the styles vary is only to be expected.

 

Bill

[sebbysteiny]

Sebby,

 

You might find differences in the interpretation because the old testament was written in Hebrew, whereas the new was written in Greek. The reason for this being that the most common language of the time had switched. This would leave all sorts of words that couldn't be directly translated.

 

That is an interesting idea, but it doesn't really explain it. The interpretational methods used to extract meaning from a sentance does not change with language. It could be English, but the interprational and stylistic differences would still be gapingly obvious. Remember, the difference is that Jesus' messages are understood by looking for the meaning of the sentences he says and the meaning of the stories he tells. For the old testament, this is only 30% of the story. The rest is found from looking at the exact choice of letters used, including for example, the choice to use alaph as the first letter of the sentence when other words or sentence constructions would do the job equally or even better from a purely gramatical point of view.

 

Did it ever occur to you that language changes over time? This is seen with the debates over the meaning of the US Constitution after just a couple hundred years. Now replace that with thousands of years instead, and written in varying native languages. The fact that the styles vary is only to be expected.

 

Another good try, but I think it also does not explain it. You said language changes over time. However, style does not. For example, if Charles Dickens wrote today, although his language would be very different, the way he expresses himself with that language would not be so that, for example, a decent psycologist could work out that it is the same person. However Jesus and God (in the old testiment) have a totally different personality regarding the style in which they express themselves.

 

Further, isn't the whole concept of God that he is timeless? The idea of god changing styles to go with the going trend seems far fetched.

 

On a more personal note, I'm citing my own reasons as to why I consider the bible as the word of God.

...

Scientifically accurate - (Yes, I know you're all going to jump on me for this one.....) However, Genesis details the creation of the earth, the way the animals appeared on it, and then finally man.

 

All of us here accept that there is an earth, and that plants and animals appeared before men. So in that sense it is accurate.

 

In Genesis, man is said to have been created from the dirt. When we analyze the elemental breakdown of the human body, we find that we are comprised of the same components.

 

Lastly, I've given Genesis a very close study to see if it actually contradicts science, and I have found that it actually does. The best contradiction of the literal meaning is that according to Genesis, the moon and the sun used to shine as brightly as each other, but the moon got jelous and god stopped the moon from being as bright.

 

However, it is scientifically proven that the moon never underwent nuclear fusion. Sorry, but the literal word of the bible is contradicted by science. There is no denying that. How you choose to explain that is a very different matter.

[CerebralEcstasy]

If, gods exact words to the letter are that of the old testiment, and if Jesus is just god in human form, it stands to reason that the two messages (the exact words used in Jesus' preachings, and the words of the old testiment) should be in the same style and thus subject to the same interpretational rules. However, they are not.

 

Hi Again Sebby :epizza:

 

I had to go back to the beginning and dredge this up, as I should have addressed it first. You weren't only alluding to the issues with the language, but also the subject material.

 

On the basis of scripture, I believe Christ was the Son of God, and not God. So your reasoning (although accepted by most churches today), doesn't really apply to me.

 

It is thought that Moses compiled the first five books of the hebrew scriptures (old testament), and was followed by 38 other writers/compilers including Josh, Sam, David, Solomon, Isaiah etc., They lived over a period of 1100 years, and came from various occupations, such as shepherd, copyist, govenor, king, prophet and priest. Some were direct eyewitnesses of events that transpired, others were not.

 

In the greek scriptures (new testament) comprised of 27 books, written under inspiration by 8 men. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude. It should be noted that not all of these men had followed Jesus during his ministry. It is thought that only Matthew, John and Peter did. Mark may have been the young man mentioned in acts who followed Jesus after he'd been arrested. (Acts 1:13)

 

These new writings are thought to have taken less than 60 years, quite a contrast to the 11 centuries it took to write the old testament.

 

The point I'm trying to make with all of this babbling is that while it seems there is a different way of disclosing the information being employed here, there really isn't.

 

In both cases, both were written over a period of years, by men who were/ and were not eyewitnesses of certain events. Both groups of men came from various walks of life. All claiming to be inspired of God.

 

We see from the teachings of Jesus, that respect was still held for the old testament, as there are somewhere around 320 references to the old testament in the new one (I may even be a few shy on this number, it may even be as high as 800).

 

Writers of the new testament acknowledge and include that the Hebrew scriptures were also inspired of God. In fact, much of the new testament would be nearly impossible to understand without the old testament.

 

So while you may feel that there was a different style being employed, it isn't the style, but the information being disseminated.

 

As for interpretation of this information, the bible seems to explain that there are the elemental things (simple if you will) and those that require more spiritual maturity in order to understand - Heb 6:1).

 

I consider the old testament to be very weighty in content, as it contains many prophecies regarding the messiah, the line he would come through, the town he'd be born in and so forth, not to mention the history of that time, and their code of law.

 

The new testament is geared toward the ministry of Christ, his origin, his example, his death and resurrection, as well as proof that he was indeed the messiah. It also details the historical record of the formation of the what the christian congregation should look like today.

 

All of this information coupled with the language issue makes it a challenge for ANYONE to understand, let alone agree upon.

 

With that being said, I hope this hasn't caused you to fall into a letter induced coma....

[sebbysteiny]

Welcome back Celebral Ecstacy,

 

your last post contained some very interesting arguments which I believe may go part of the way to explaining an apparant inconsistance within the scriptures. However, there is still a misunderstanding which severely weaked your arguments in some places.

 

Writers of the new testament acknowledge and include that the Hebrew scriptures were also inspired of God. In fact, much of the new testament would be nearly impossible to understand without the old testament.

 

As much as I understand that your personal belief is fundamentally different to that accepted by the higher echelons of the church, it is the latter that I am arguing against. I think your misunderstanding has arisen because you do not quite see the exact dictation nature of the entire old testiment. Not one word of it is (according to the very knowledgable Christians and Jewish teachings) inspired by god. It is entirely a dictation by god to Moses at mount Sini.

 

It is thought that Moses compiled the first five books of the hebrew scriptures (old testament), and was followed by 38 other writers/compilers including Josh, Sam, David, Solomon, Isaiah etc., They lived over a period of 1100 years, and came from various occupations, such as shepherd, copyist, govenor, king, prophet and priest. Some were direct eyewitnesses of events that transpired, others were not.

This is a common misunderstanding amongst the Christian community. This does not mean that this is accepted by the Christian community because in the more advanced and senior Bishops will not accept this and neither would most orthodox rabbis. The problem lies in that the Christianity is fundamentally Christian based, so the lower ranking vicars are not familiar with the intricacies of the old testiment so they simply apply the same rules to the old testiment as they do the old.

 

What you have stated is a very convincing argument why the old testiment could not have been dictated to by god at Mount Sini. This is because, were this to be the truth, the old testiment would contain predictions of the future. However, since this is not beyond god's powers, these problems are not considered enough to justify that any part of old testiment is written by anybody other than god. Again, I repeat, not inspired by god, nor written by someone else on god's behalf, nor even eye witness accounts, they are gods exact words to the letter.

 

However, many in the Jewish community believe this explanation implausible on the grounds you have mentioned. However, these beliefs are still contrary to the beliefs in the Jewish and advanced Christian communities.

 

Writers of the new testament acknowledge and include that the Hebrew scriptures were also inspired of God. In fact, much of the new testament would be nearly impossible to understand without the old testament.

 

Again true, except for the fact that the Hebrew scriptures are not inspired by god, they were written by god. If copyright law were applicable in those days, god would own the full copyright and Moses (and all other alleged contributors) would have no more rights to the bible than a photocopying machine.

 

In the greek scriptures (new testament) comprised of 27 books, written under inspiration by 8 men. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter, and Jude. It should be noted that not all of these men had followed Jesus during his ministry. It is thought that only Matthew, John and Peter did. Mark may have been the young man mentioned in acts who followed Jesus after he'd been arrested. (Acts 1:13)

 

This I believe might be your strongest point. The words spoken by Jesus were probably not remembered word for word. Instead, they are only a good guide that misses all the linguistical and stylistic nuances but contains all the explicit messages. Thus, if one were to have actually listened to Jesus, Jesus would have probably sounded similar to the style of the old testiment. If Christianity disagrees with that, then the paradox remains unsolved.

 

Was that what you were getting at?

[Boerseun]

Edella, the wager you talk about is one specific pro-God argument I've heard countless times which gripes me no end.

 

Think about it:

 

You believe in God, you win.

You don't believe in God, you go to hell.

 

Therefore, to be on the safe side, let's believe in God.

 

So reduce it to the nitty-gritty here. Why believe in God? Because of your true conviction of God? Or out of fear?

 

Religion and Belief is not a wager. And any deity worth His salt will see through anybody's proclaiming Faith based on this specific argument.

 

I don't get it. Belief based solely on your fear of hell lacks all possible kinds of morality. It says nothing of your conviction of the existence of your deity of choice - 'cause, hey, if you're wrong, you didn't lose anything, right?

[Edella]

Belief based solely on your fear of hell lacks all possible kinds of morality. It says nothing of your conviction of the existence of your deity of choice - 'cause, hey, if you're wrong, you didn't lose anything, right?...Religion and Belief is not a wager.

Exactly Boerseun.I was arguing against Pascal's Wager,and noted some flaws in it's logic.

 

How do we pick the right god out of this multiplicity of deities? How can we find the right Heaven and avoid the right Hell when there are countless different ones to choose from? The Wager offers no help in making this choice; by its logic we should believe in any supernatural being claimed to have the power to reward or punish us. What if the universalists are right and God does not condemn anyone, but forgives everyone and lets them into Heaven anyway? In that case, atheists have nothing to lose.

Perhaps you misread my post,if not,I don't understand.It seems to me we are in total agreement.

[CerebralEcstasy]

I think your misunderstanding has arisen because you do not quite see the exact dictation nature of the entire old testiment. Not one word of it is (according to the very knowledgable Christians and Jewish teachings) inspired by god. It is entirely a dictation by god to Moses at mount Sini.

 

I am not disputing the fact that Moses did write a lot of the old testament.

 

However, I am leery of the very knowledgable Christians and Jewish peoples of today. As I know their sort existed in the time of Jesus and he had none too kind words to say about them. See Matt 16:3,4; 23:5, 13-16.

 

Paul also has some harsh words which he delivers in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16.

 

14For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, 15who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men 16in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit....

 

What you have stated is a very convincing argument why the old testiment could not have been dictated to by god at Mount Sini.

 

Actually if you read exodus 31:18, you'll see the tablets were handed to him, with the words of the commandments scortched into the rock by God's own finger.

 

This is because, were this to be the truth, the old testiment would contain predictions of the future.

 

Um, it does. Too many really to get into detail in a small blog such as this.

 

Again, I repeat, not inspired by god, nor written by someone else on god's behalf, nor even eye witness accounts, they are gods exact words to the letter.

 

2 Peter 1:20,21 tells a different story.

 

20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation, 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

 

However, many in the Jewish community believe this explanation implausible on the grounds you have mentioned. However, these beliefs are still contrary to the beliefs in the Jewish and advanced Christian communities

.

 

They have valid grounds in which to call the explanation implausible.

[InfiniteNow]

Through the years, before the advent of the printing press, copies were hand written by scribes and distributed. Different scribes may have made one or two errors here and there, and when they distributed their copies, the errors magnified.

 

It's a bit like the old telephone game we all played in early elementary school. You sit side by side, like 10 or more people, and whisper a sentence into the ear of the first person. They then turn and whisper what they think they heard to the person next them, and they whisper what they think they heard to the person next to them, and so on all the way down the line. This mutates the original sentence.

 

Same thing with the copies of the Bible.

 

Also, some of these scribes added stories. They added personal interpretations. Some drew pictures in the margins. All of this individual input has morphed the book through the millenia. I question how any of it's contents can be said to be absolute, especially since even the very first and original document (the person who came up with the sentence in the phone game and whispered into the very first ear in the line) was a human being and writing it on their own.

 

Regardless of how well you know someone, you can only interpret what you think they mean... You will never know EXACTLY their thoughts, only your filtered version of them.

 

An echo of a shadow on a moving screen...

[CerebralEcstasy]

Through the years, before the advent of the printing press, copies were hand written by scribes and distributed. Different scribes may have made one or two errors here and there, and when they distributed their copies, the errors magnified.

 

One would definitely think so, but most were pretty adamant about keeping the word of God from defilement. Some maybe due to reverence of God's word, others due to fear - as there is a warning written to those who add/take away from the word in Revelation.

 

Most scriptures have passed through generations remain intact with only a letter or two being changed.

 

Regardless of how well you know someone, you can only interpret what you think they mean... You will never know EXACTLY their thoughts, only your filtered version of them.

 

I agree. However, in this case the men who were spoken of were said to have been borne along by Holy Spirit. I think therein lies the difference.

 

An echo of a shadow on a moving screen...

 

That's rather poetic. I likes it!!!!

[sebbysteiny]

Edella, the wager you talk about is one specific pro-God argument I've heard countless times which gripes me no end.

 

Think about it:

 

You believe in God, you win.

You don't believe in God, you go to hell.

 

Therefore, to be on the safe side, let's believe in God.

 

So reduce it to the nitty-gritty here. Why believe in God? Because of your true conviction of God? Or out of fear?

 

Religion and Belief is not a wager. And any deity worth His salt will see through anybody's proclaiming Faith based on this specific argument.

 

I don't get it. Belief based solely on your fear of hell lacks all possible kinds of morality. It says nothing of your conviction of the existence of your deity of choice - 'cause, hey, if you're wrong, you didn't lose anything, right?

 

Wow, I'm an atheist who is disagreeing with an atheist argument. A novelty and a definate first for me.

 

I do not think that believing on God to be on the safe side is born out of fear. It is a perfectly reasonable diplomatic innitiative to hedge ones bets so that one ends up okay no matter how the cookie crumbles.

 

Perhaps a better attack would be that even if god exists and one has developed a belief in god simply to meet that possibility, then how does one 'know' which 'god' to support? Islam? Jewish? Christian? Budist? Hindu? And even if you get the 'right' one, who's to say you picked the right sect?

[sebbysteiny]

Actually if you read exodus 31:18, you'll see the tablets were handed to him, with the words of the commandments scortched into the rock by God's own finger.

 

That may be the 10 commandments, but that wasn't the case with the entire old testiment. That was a dictation. However, if god scourced it into the rock it just backs up my arguments further.

 

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation, 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

 

This is the crux of this issue. Nowhere does it say the exact words and letters are chosen by god. Only the prophicies, ie only the message contained within the sentence. How that proficy is expressed is constructed by man. If not, then the this actually supports my arguements that god has changed his style because the new testiment is absolutely not supposed to be interpretted with the linguistical and gramatical scrutiny that the old testiment is supposed to be subject to.

 

However, I am leery of the very knowledgable Christians and Jewish peoples of today. As I know their sort existed in the time of Jesus and he had none too kind words to say about them. See Matt 16:3,4; 23:5, 13-16.

 

Paul also has some harsh words which he delivers in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16.

 

14For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, 15who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men 16in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit....

 

I haven't heard this deeply disturbing quote. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't this verging on the deeply anti-semitic notion that the Jews as a race killed Jesus? Please explain the motives of adding the above to this debate.

[Mercedes Benzene]

I haven't heard this deeply disturbing quote. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't this verging on the deeply anti-semitic notion that the Jews as a race killed Jesus? Please explain the motives of adding the above to this debate.

 

People who think that it was the Jews' fault tha Jesus was killed are ignorant.

It is a notion that certainly should not be declared generally as "Jewish".

 

The fact is, it was one "tribe" of Jews that decided to kill Jesus, based on the opinions of a few.

Its like saying all muslims hate America and all of our ideologies. Its just a few radical groups that hold such strong beliefs and act rashly upon them.

[CerebralEcstasy]

I haven't heard this deeply disturbing quote. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't this verging on the deeply anti-semitic notion that the Jews as a race killed Jesus? Please explain the motives of adding the above to this debate.

 

Your argument seemed to indicate that you felt there were knowledgeable christians, and jewish peoples who were to be considered more learned in the scriptures.

 

I sought scripture that talked about both of these groups of people, and their errors according to interpreting the scriptures and so forth.

 

There was no anti-semitic vein intended. In fact I'm rather taken aback that you would even SUGGEST such a thing.

[Drip Curl Magic]

notice how petriFB couldn't hang.:naughty: