Bible is word of God ...

[sebbysteiny]

It is interesting how Jesus spoke in the very same manner. He said in John's gospel,

"I AM the bread of life. I AM the gate. I AM the good shepherd. I AM the way. I AM

the light. I AM the true vine." The "I AM" Jesus spoke of is the same "I AM" that sent

Moses in power to Egypt.

 

You made some interesting points

I AM not sure that the part above is suggests Jesus is god, since by that argument, I AM I AM :lol:

[IDMclean]

Indeed, it is one of the reasons I picked that as something to put here. Often enough people miss what is right in front of them, not for a lack of trying, but simply for a type of blindness, one which can be treated by those who push themselves to see more, or to see clearer.

 

I am that I am. That You are I am, means to me that should I wish you ill, I wish I am ill. I do not wish myself ill, so I likewise do not wish it of you.

 

Beautiful feed back loop.

[HydrogenBond]

If the bible is the word of God, it was presented to the masses via middlemen called prophets. The prophets were part of their generation with one foot in human time and the other foot in Divine time. The result is that many things contained in then temporal word of God, that were approproiate at one time in history, may not be appropriate in a future time.

 

For example, animal scrifices and burnt offerings were the law during the time of Moses. They would butcher cattle, sheep, etc. and burn them in the fire. This was real sacrifice to God without any recycle of wealth. This is no longer in practiced because times have changed. We neither have animal sacrifices and those who do are called Satanic. Nor do we make a real sacrifice to God but use the sacifice of the masses to pad the coffers of the spiritual leaders.

 

Another example, is that Christ's sacrifice did away with law for righteousness. The righteous man shall live by faith and not law. The ten commandments were replaced by the word of God via Christ with only two commandments; Love God and love they neighbor. Yet man regressed back to the obsolete version of the word of God because they mistakenly think that living water can only be carved in stone.

[InfiniteNow]

The reason you have never heard this is because the church really doesn't care about going into the old-testiment in that detail.

Of course the church doesn't care about going into the OT in that detail. :) It's a building, made of bricks and stone and mortar... A much better question would be what the members of a particular denomination of a church (aka religion) believe, and on what their leaders/hierarchy request they focus their care. :cup::

[cwes99_03]

I've family that are Jewish. Which particular portion, I am not sure, except I'm sure that they aren't Orthodox.

 

Speaking as a christian, I have been around many religions growing up including Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Apastolic, Dutch Reform, Baptist, etc. and non of them believe that God wrote down the words of the old testament and gave them to Moses or to any other prophet/person. Only the case of the two stone tablets is recorded in the Bible as God directly (via an angel?) composing something and giving it to Moses.

Now several scriptures do cite a direct quotation of God being written down by the prophet, but this does not mean that God wrote it but "inspired" it. After all that is the word chosen by numerous translators of the Bible as to how the scriptures (both old and new testament) were handed down.

Inspired means that a human did the literal writing, using words and a language that the person himself knew, but that God would not allow the writer to make any mistakes and would guide his thoughts. Thus we account for the differences in writing styles, as each writer was from a different background.

 

KAC, as far as the I AM and whether or not there is a triad godhead in the form prognosticated as the Trinity, that might be a subject for a different thread.

[cwes99_03]

HydrogenBond, perhaps your post on the value of animal sacrifices and the usefulness of the law according to the scriptures might also be a viable topic on another thread. I'm not suggesting just going off on a bunch of suppositions, but actually seeing what the scriptures say and getting input from the group.

[HydrogenBond]

I was working under the assumption that the bible is the word of God. But like educating children the word changed with the maturity of humanity. To teach a child the atom is like planets orbiting the sun is not technically correct but it is a good way to prime the child's brain for the future.

 

The comment about Christ summarizing the law, as love God and love your neighbor, was a more advanced word of God. Most people are still using the earlier words of God and don't seem to realize that this was superseded by something more advanced.

 

I see the word of God like the tree of life there is old wood from the past that was alive at one time, and new branches, fruit, and leaves for each new generation. The live part of the tree of life may be a function of our evolving interpretation, mediated through the spirit of god.

 

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is the forbidden tree (law) yet it is typically the preferred tree producing the same wormy fruit year after year. People continue to eat of it thinking the outcome will be different.

 

Romans 5:13 For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not inputed when there is not law.

 

Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free, therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

 

Cor. I 10:23 All things are lawful, but not all thing are profitable. All things are lawful,but not all things edify.

 

Romans 3:20 Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified in his sight, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.

 

Romans 6:14 For sin shall not be a master over you, for you are not under law but under grace.

 

Cor II 3:6 Who also made us adequit as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter kills but the Spirit gives life

 

Cor II 3:3 Written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the Living God, not on tablets of stone, but on tablets of human hearts

 

Cor II 1:18-19 But as God is faithful, our word to you is not yes and no. Fo rthe Son of God, Jesus Christ, whi was preached among you by us-byu me and Silvanus and Timothy-was not yes and no (law) but yes in him.

[CerebralEcstasy]

I don't think so.I certainly could be wrong,and would examine any new evidence gladly.But as I've said before,the attributes ascribed to the Lord of the Bible and His actions don't add up for me.I am convinced an all loving God would not be so cruel:Exodus 12:29,Numbers 15:32-36,etc.

 

The account of which you speak cannot be adequately discussed without a thorough examination of the scriptures which lead up to the situation spoke of in Exodus 12:29 - Where all the first born of egypt was killed.

 

Exodus 7:1 - is really the beginning of this whole ordeal. Where God sends 10 plagues to Egypt. Each plague has been alluded to being an attack against a god that was being worshipped in Egypt at the time by everyone but the Hebrews.

 

It offered the people within Egypt the chance to see just who was a God worthy of exclusive devotion - the first few plagues were copied by Pharoah's sorcerers, but as time went on, we see that they lacked the ability to stop some of the scourage that had come upon them.

 

Each time Pharoah was told what would happen, and each time he refused to answer the one simple request that Moses and Aaron had made at God's behest. Let my people go. He even reneged on his own word, saying he would let them go, only to change his mind as soon as the plague had stopped.

 

To me this says that God used Pharoah's hard heartedness to his own advantage. To show his people that the god's they might have become familiar with while under servitude to the Egyptians, weren't capable of offering the deliverance only he could.

 

You should also note that when they were finally set free, a number of Egyptians who witnessed these occurences - went with them!!!!

 

So while you see this as an act of cruelty. I see something different. I see that each time fair warning was given. I see that there were not one but 10 chances for pharoah to do as was requested of him. Yet he was obstinant.

 

For want of a better current analogy - a patient goes into the doctor, he is told by his doctor that he must quit smoking not once, but 10 times or something bad will happen to him. Man refuses to do so, and ends up dying of lung cancer. Is this cruelty on the part of the doctor?

 

I hope you see the connection I'm trying to make here.

 

As for my having made up my mind previous to examining the scriptures, I would have to say no. Simply because I was always questioning whether this or that could be plausible.

 

Over the course of time though, I have seen that there is some very wise counsel contained within the pages - even though some might think otherwise. I've also found that when I apply bible standards in my life, those around me, as well as myself benefit greatly from it.

 

One small example. Colossians 3:8 talks about putting away all screaming and abusive speech. Until I started applying this principle, I for all explanatory purposes was a *****. My ex-husband can vouch for this :)

 

Anyhow.....after consideration of the scriptures I realized that there might be a better way of dealing with people, and issues without being a *****. It taught me to leave others with dignity, and to respect their viewpoints. In the past....... not a chance. I honestly can say I don't know where else I would have learned this - since I obviously hadn't in the 25-27 years previous.

[paigetheoracle]

With regards to Kickassclown's I AM statements, I'd like to add the following - I AM means I exist (I am not theory but fact). It also stands for 'self actualising'. By this I mean self created, not externally created - that is inside out, not outside in. To say I am not anything is to deny your existence and therefore to deny your creative ability (I am not here/ I have not done anything/ I am not capable of doing anything/ I am a helpless child not a helpful adult). To be God is to advance into the world not retreat from it and all 'response-ability'. God is not something 'out there' but 'in here'. To deny God is to deny ourselves but this is part of existence. We arrive in this world as outsiders (children) but learn its lessons and become insiders (The Tao): We get hurt by what we don't understand and need to retreat to gain knowledge of that which mystified us (The assumption we knew is disproved by the physical proof we didn't, that is our failure rather than our success).

 

By the way, the God that created the universe is hardly likely to get caught up in local squabbles in the middle of nowhere (God doesn't take sides, Man does): The ego wants to be noticed and thought of as special which is why it fights to the death to hold onto its illusions (limits) but the truth is closer to science, which is that reality is vast and strange and needs to be explored, not hidden from in fear and awe, even though these reactions are quite understandable and better expressed than the deadening effects of ignorance.

[ughaibu]

You wrote, "to deny God is to deny ourselves", as all mammals have a sense of self, as expressed by their desires, your claim appears to define god as a basic biological feature. As such, the Bible is no more special, as the word of god, than is The Naked Lunch or Mein Kampf.

[Boerseun]

The Bible is indeed the Word of God in as much as God is entirely a construct of the human mind.

[cwes99_03]

With regards to Kickassclown's I AM statements, I'd like to add the following - I AM means I exist (I am not theory but fact). It also stands for 'self actualising'. By this I mean self created, not externally created - that is inside out, not outside in. To say I am not anything is to deny your existence and therefore to deny your creative ability (I am not here/ I have not done anything/ I am not capable of doing anything/ I am a helpless child not a helpful adult). To be God is to advance into the world not retreat from it and all 'response-ability'. God is not something 'out there' but 'in here'. To deny God is to deny ourselves but this is part of existence. We arrive in this world as outsiders (children) but learn its lessons and become insiders (The Tao): We get hurt by what we don't understand and need to retreat to gain knowledge of that which mystified us (The assumption we knew is disproved by the physical proof we didn't, that is our failure rather than our success).

 

By the way, the God that created the universe is hardly likely to get caught up in local squabbles in the middle of nowhere (God doesn't take sides, Man does): The ego wants to be noticed and thought of as special which is why it fights to the death to hold onto its illusions (limits) but the truth is closer to science, which is that reality is vast and strange and needs to be explored, not hidden from in fear and awe, even though these reactions are quite understandable and better expressed than the deadening effects of ignorance.

 

Paige are you speaking as a Christian? Much of the above is in direct objection to what the scriptures actually say. Is this your personal interpretation of religion pulling from many philosophies and religions to form this opinion? While that is fine and dandy for you, this thread is not discussing those other philosophies and religions. The title of the thread was Bible is word of God. If you care to make statements as you made above, please support them in some way with the Bible, or other books dealing with the subject of whether the Bible is the word of God, as that is what this particular thread is about.

 

UG and Boer, you both are treading over or very near to the line that was set in the forum rules for disparaging people of other faiths.

Please keep your feelings and comments to yourself unless they specifically deal with the subject at hand and you can support it with subject matter that is relevant to the thread at hand (namely the Bible or books that deal with the subject of whether the Bible is the word of God.)

[Pyrotex]

Paige are you speaking as a Christian? Much of the above is in direct objection to what the scriptures actually say. ...UG and Boer, you both are treading over or very near to the line that was set in the forum rules for disparaging people of other faiths...

Take it easy now.

Humans have been fighting for nearly 2,000 years over what the scriptures ACTUALLY say. If there WERE just one and only one way to interpret them, far wiser and more learned men would have discovered it many hundreds of years ago. Reading the Bible in English today may easily give one the illusion that translation from ancient languages is pretty straight-forward, like going from German to English. It isn't, but most biblical scholars aren't going spread that around, for obvious reasons.

 

However, a few biblical scholars have had the courage to address this:

 

In "Answers to Questions About the Bible" page 29, apologist Robert Mounce asks "If a knowledge of the original Greek clears up all questions then why are the experts still arguing?" Mounce concludes, "A knowledge of the Greek does not solve all problems."

 

In "Problem Texts" page 58, Dr. Peter Ruckman (President of the Pensacola Bible Institute) says, "One of the standard gimmicks... is that a knowledge of the original Greek is essential to understand the NT. This age-old con man's tool has probably put more young men out of the ministry... than any other single gimmick." On page 66, Ruckman concludes, "You need Greek grammar like a baby kangaroo needs a cradle."

 

On page 438 he says, "The confidence of the Bible department of Bob Jones University according to its president is to be placed in the Greek and the Hebrew without saying WHICH Greek or WHICH Hebrew or WHICH text or WHICH set of manuscripts or WHO interprets any of them. ... There is NO such thing as THE Greek and THE Hebrew to put confidence in."

 

If it were possible to 'go to the Greek and the Hebrew' to answer all problems about Biblical errancy, then WHY hasn't anybody ever written a version of the Bible based strictly upon THE Greek and THE Hebrew? A Bible which contains NO errors, NO contradictions, NO inconsistencies, NO verses that are obscure? Simple: it cannot be done. If it WERE possible, it WOULD have been done already.

 

Many folks are very protective of their, personal interpretation of scripture. But the fact is, all scriptures so far discovered (including the Bible) show all the signs of having been scribed by humans who reflected a particular society and culture at a particular time. These signs include internal inconsistencies, editing, use of "local" language (slang and traditional phrasing) whose meaning is now lost to us, ignorance of natural law, and oral tradition stories.

 

Furthermore, I believe the original theme of this thread is going to be nearly impossible to hold to. There is a lot of "preaching" going on here, and "scripture salvos" but not a lot of discussion as to (for example) what evidence would it take to indicate that a deity composed scripture rather than humans.

[ughaibu]

Cwes99_03: Not at all, I have addressed a point raised by Paigetheoracle. As to you own suggestion that the question of whether or not the Bible be the word of god, should be supported by the Bible, this is clearly absurd, as absurd as it would be to take a statement by me that I'm god to be evidence that I am. If the Bible can have any claim to be the word of god, that claim will necessarily need to be supported independent of the contents of the Bible itself.

[cwes99_03]

You wrote, "to deny God is to deny ourselves", as all mammals have a sense of self, as expressed by their desires, your claim appears to define god as a basic biological feature. As such, the Bible is no more special, as the word of god, than is The Naked Lunch or Mein Kampf.

 

Ug, how in your post would you relate the Bible to The Naked Lunch or Mein Kampf, since neither of those books make a claim to be the word of God. Since I will take the stance that you cannot, your post was meaningless and simply there to put down Paige's post. Note how I responded to Paige, by asking questions to give Paige the chance to explain. (note: I have not always done this in the past, but I am working on this.)

 

Ug, you on the other hand have made it quite clear in the past that you do not intend to discuss the subject but put down discussions in the theology thread since you do not believe the same way others do.

 

Boer too has made it clear in past discussions that he does not like a theology forum, by his constant sniping of threads in the theology forum. To this I say, please keep off of the forum if you do not wish to properly discuss the topics being discussed. A theology forum was started, so be polite and proper members of this forum and refrain from responding as I have seen done here as a courtesy to all members of this forum.

As to you own suggestion that the question of whether or not the Bible be the word of god, should be supported by the Bible, this is clearly absurd, as absurd as it would be to take a statement by me that I'm god to be evidence that I am.

This is not absurd. I read a book and it says it's author is Tom Clancy and it reads like other Tom Clancy novels, then I will believe it was written by Tom Clancy. I am not denying that there should be other evidence to the effect that the novel was written by Tom Clancy (as stated it reads like a Tom Clancy novel) among other things.

By all means bring up other books by authors who make valid points or discuss the issue of whether or not the Bible is the word of God, as I also stated in my earlier comment to you and Boerseun. Mein Kampf and The Naked Lunch (to the best of my knowledge) do not do any such thing. Therefore I took your comment strictly to be nothing but offensive.

 

While Pyro and I may not see eye to eye, he at least brings knowledge and study to the forum with his viewpoint. I therefore welcome his attempts to add to these conversations as much as I hope he welcomes mine.

 

Pyro I agree that there is some confusion among the millions of people who have studied this topic. I disagree that it can't be done. I also disagree that at one time 2000 years ago men did not understand this topic extremely well. In fact the Bible writers themselves seemed to have understood everything they wrote and it has been lost due to other men that have added to it for their own means of advancement such as some churches/religions have done.

[ughaibu]

1) The claim of Paigetheoracle was that god is expressed from within- the Bible is thus an expression of god, as it was exteriorised by humans- this applies to other creative works by humans- examples: The Naked Lunch and Mein Kampf.

Fairly easy to understand, so you can feel free to retract your second sentence.

2) Tom Clancy can be confirmed by photographs, interviews, birth records, etc. Can god? No. Your analogy is inappropriate.

3) See the rules for this forum, "this is not the place to discuss Bible verses", --Tormod.

4) So far there has been nothing presented on this thread to support the existence of god or authorship of this book being attributable to any supposed god. The title statement, "Bible is word of God ...", represents a religious belief, it has nothing to do with either reality or theology. This thread belongs in the strange claims forum.

[Pyrotex]

...Ug, you on the other hand have made it quite clear in the past that you do not intend to discuss the subject but put down discussions in the theology thread since you do not believe the same way others do.

To follow this logic, it would have to be that ONLY people who believe as YOU do would be qualified to speak here. And that ALL those who do NOT are here only to muddy the waters. Cwes, this is not true. If you want to debate theology, then you have to debate folks who do not share your beliefs.

Boer too has made it clear in past discussions that he does not like a theology forum, by his constant sniping of threads in the theology forum. To this I say, please keep off of the forum if you do not wish to properly discuss the topics being discussed.

So, does "properly discuss" mean agreeing with you? What if everyone else is right and you are wrong? It would be a tragic failure of our obligations to agree with you then.

A theology forum was started, so be polite and proper members of this forum and refrain from responding as I have seen done here as a courtesy to all members of this forum.

I tell you what. When YOU get to be an official moderator of this forum, as I am, then you can tell folks who should and should not be allowed to express their opinions.

...Therefore I took your comment strictly to be nothing but offensive.

I'm glad to see that you realize that being offended is a choice. [Hint] let go of the need to have others be convinced by each of your arguments. Persuasion often takes the accumulated debates of years. If you are simply true to your beliefs, then their responses may be humorous or disappointing, but they won't offend you. [/Hint]

While Pyro and I may not see eye to eye, he at least brings knowledge and study to the forum with his viewpoint. I therefore welcome his attempts to add to these conversations as much as I hope he welcomes mine. Pyro I agree that there is some confusion among the millions of people who have studied this topic. I disagree that it can't be done...

Thanks for the kudo. In turn, I would like to acknowledge that your sensitivity on this subject has much improved.

 

So. If it CAN be done, go thou and do it. You may want to start learning ancient Greek and Hebrew. Also, you will need some help with resources. I recommend you choose a university that is NOT associated with a specific denomination--they tend to be biased and self-serving. Grants and scholarships tend to be a little easier for your quest than for engineers and politicians because there is less competition. Good luck.