Bible is word of God ...

[Pyrotex]

1) The claim...applies to other creative works by humans- examples: The Naked Lunch and Mein Kampf.

You would have done far better to skip the temptation to throw for a 95-yard touchdown, and simply make the few yards you needed for a first down. In other words, you could have named works such as The Book of Mormon and Conversations With God.

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

Careful. You just might "think" that's a picture of Clancy. God's picture on burnt tortillas and moldy concrete is taken pretty seriously in some circles. I mean, your point is spot on, but is it a point that is going to advance the conversation? Probably not. Avoid "easy shot" points, because over time, your opponent begins to skim through your stuff expecting nothing but "easy shots", and fails to READ.

...This thread belongs in the strange claims forum.

I'm thinking about it. However, if you folks try a little harder to stay within the boundaries, and start displaying evidence they you are seriously reading each other's logic, I may let it continue.

[ughaibu]

As an example author, I was in two minds about choosing George Sands.

[Pyrotex]

As an example author, I was in two minds about choosing George Sands.

Very appropriate. George Sands had two minds. :)

[cwes99_03]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cwes99_03

...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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Actually, being a member means I can do so without having weight behind me. Being a mod means you can with weight. I respect that this means that you have more limitations set on you but also greater power. However, I point out that Boerseun is also a mod, but he is also a perpetrator in this particular portion of Hypography.

I was however not disagreeing with UG or Boer but attempting to correct their wayward actions that seemed to attack members of this forum for their beliefs. I in turn was not attacking their beliefs but their methods as I understood them, since they seemed to be attacking a member's beliefs instead of drawing them out with questions to show them where they may have erred.

Ug has now responded with a much better explanation of his post. Mein Kampf and Naked Lunch do not have anything to do with whether the Bible is the word of God. Instead, they are writings of men, and Ug seems to be saying that if God is a biological function of us (as he understood Paige's post) then any man who writes anything can claim their writing to be from God. The point is now made clear, I think.

Also if you will note I asked that they support their claims with citations. I was not attempting to silence those who have opposing viewpoints, but to silence baseless attacks of people as can be seen from the following quote of mine.

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.)

Now on to point number 4.

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.

This thread was not created to discuss the existence of God. It was in fact created by someone who I would label as a thread spammer. It has however devolved into a discussion of whether the Bible claims to be a direct writing of God, or a translation by men, or something else.

Pyro then put forth a few prophecies that seemed to point out that it was fallable (which I reputed.) Since he is a mod citing scripture and precident has been set in other threads where a need to cite examples is always mandated, it has become proper to cite scripture when necessary, but not to use it to proselitize. Therefore the discussion that originally occured on the rules for the theology forum (if you would care to read that thread up until it was silenced) are guidlines enforced by the mods.

The theology forum is here to discuss the ideas and teachings and scriptures or other holy books of the various religions. This particular thread discusses the Bible. Since theology is a recognized science throughout the world, it does not belong in the strange claims forum unless a claim is made that cannot be supported by the literary works of a religion or is otherwise baseless. As the Bible holds many reasons why it can be believed that it is the word of God (similar to the analogy I made earlier) then it does not belong in the strange claims forum. One persons hijacking of a thread also does not deem it to be moved to the strange claims forum. It means that the mods are required to bring that thread back on task or put the kabash on it so that a new thread may be begun.

[Pyrotex]

...a discussion of whether the Bible claims to be a direct writing of God, or a translation by men, or something else.

Pyro then put forth a few prophecies that seemed to point out that it was fallable (which I reputed.) ...proper to cite scripture when necessary, but not to use it to proselitize....the mods are required to bring that thread back on task....

Okay. :wink: Consider it back on task.

I'm glad to see that you only reputed me. Had you refuted me, I would have had to shoot bolts of lightening out of my fingertips. I hate it when I have to do that.

Carry on. ;)

[ughaibu]

Cwes99_03:

The question of the existence or otherwise of god precedes the question of authorship of the Bible. There are quotes of various gods in Ovid's Metamorphoses, there are quotes of hobbits in Lord of the Rings, the mere fact that something appears in a book doesn't constitute any evidence, it is hearsay.

In the example of George Sands, we have someone who found her work was accepted after adopting the ruse of a male personna and soubriquet, naturally, any author appealling to a religiously inclined readership, would similarly consider adopting a divine personna and soubriquet. In view of this, I find your analogy unconvincing.

On the question of prophecy, one can visit any local bookmaker on any day of the week and witness examples of successful prophecy. Karl Marx, presumably, was successful in at least one of his prophecies, does this mean punters and political theorists can claim divine inspiration?

What are the "many reasons why it can be believed that [the Bible] is the word of God"?

[Pyrotex]

... I find your analogy unconvincing....What are the "many reasons why it can be believed that [the Bible] is the word of God"?

Remember folks, in the crucible of theological debate, it takes more than "reason" to cause a change of mind. It also requires a "height of the bar" that permits a "reason" to "polevault" over the bar.

 

If my beliefs are sacrosanct, I only have to set the bar so high that no reason can ever reach it. My nose is thumbed at you.

 

If my cynicism is sacrosanct, I only have to set the bar so low that any reason at all makes it over and feeds my cynicism.

 

Consider that THIS may be the chief reason that theological debate is so popular! Think about it. Carry on. :wink:

[ughaibu]

I would assess the chance of the Bible being the word of god, even if god exists, at zero. If the Bible is the word of god, it's authors or their informants must have had a method of communicating with god, such a method would be extremely useful, particularly as exemplified by the creation, as the creation concerns events to which no human was witness. Think of the benefits of such a method, there would be no question of reasonable doubt, no false imprisonment or execution, ultimately there would be no dishonesty in any form. There would even be no need to write the Bible, practicioners of the method could investigate all the relevant matters first hand, all that was needed was to record the method. There could be no question of the method "falling into the wrong hands", as it was a method for communicating with god, and god, as the epitome of good, truth, honesty and general virtue, would offer nothing that could be abused or that would require concealment, unless those doing the abusing or concealing were not good people. In other words, the suppression of the method would be an act of evil, so, if we accept that the Biblical authors were of good intent, they would not have suppressed the method.

There is also the question of the effectiveness of the method, this is called into doubt by the varied and often contradictory accounts of the results of employing such a method, illustrated by the reported words and deeds of god and the attendent creation stories, found throughout the world.

Human culture consists of the accumulation and transmission of useful and effective methods. Even ignoring the unreliability implied by the inconsistent results produced by the method, it is unthinkable that nobody, from any of these cultures that maintain these traditions, would have had the nous to record the method, not only unthinkable but an insult to our ancestors. In fact, the Bible itself hints at the method with "a prophet or a dreamer of dreams", Richard Dadd killed his father on the instructions of Osiris, the "method" is no longer considered to be related to divinity.

[HydrogenBond]

The Strings of the String Theory of physics have never been seen or nor have they ever been proven to exist, yet with faith many string theoriest continue to plod on because it gives practical results. Because one cannot prove strings do not exist it remains science instead of religion because it uses math instead of words. The whole dynamics of string theory is a microcosm of the bible being the word of God. It can not be proven or disproven but inspires people on. If we translated the bible into Greek it would look more like math and science with gamma, omega, delta, sigma, etc., and may be more acceptable to science. Maybe God is made of strings and if one does not exist the other can't either.

 

I only brought this up because string religion will be defended in an irrational way, like any religion, even if direct proof of its fundamental god is lacking because disproof is also lacking. Nevertheless it drives people on with faith and hopeful expectation.

[Freddy]

Since theology is a recognized science throughout the world, it does not belong in the strange claims forum unless a claim is made that cannot be supported by the literary works of a religion or is otherwise baseless. As the Bible holds many reasons why it can be believed that it is the word of God (similar to the analogy I made earlier) then it does not belong in the strange claims forum. One persons hijacking of a thread also does not deem it to be moved to the strange claims forum. It means that the mods are required to bring that thread back on task or put the kabash on it so that a new thread may be begun.

 

I study history but I do not call it science, while you study theology and call it science. I searched and could not find theology or history listed among the fields of science. See link.

 

http://mistupid.com/science/fields.htm

[IDMclean]

God's name is I am. (Moses on the mount)

I am is reference to the self.

Therefore god is the self.

 

The self, and the Ego are entities within. The self is the voice that tells you what is right and wrong. The Ego is the voice that tells you what you desire.

 

Ego can lead into temptation.

The serpent leads those who ignore the word of god (the self) into temptation and eventually into fall (life lead by desire, or the ego).

Therefore the Ego is the serpent, the face of the devil, satan, lucifer, etc...

 

It then can be said that in listening to the word of self, is listening to the word of god. Writting the words, would then be writting the word of god (the self).

 

The self is the one, the ego is the desire. When the ego leaves with the last breath of suffering, then all that is left is the one who is I am.

 

If defined in this way, then the bible could very well be the written word of god and the written word of man at the sametime. Written by man (Ego driven), inspired by god (Self driven).

 

-trying to look at the situation from the eyes of the fool.

The Clown, Universal Circus ID# 1/299792458

[cwes99_03]

OK, KAC. I've seen you say this now twice, so I will pick it up as a discussion of this post. I however do not agree that it is necessary to prove God's existence in order to consider the possibility that the Bible is the word of God. This is a theory that can be examined with what data we have. Just as was mentioned that string theory is hypothesized even though we have never found anything above the 4 known dimensions.

 

from wikipedia: I am that I am (Hebrew: אהיה אשר אהיה, pronounced Ehyeh asher ehyeh) is one English translation of the response God used in the Bible when Moses asked for his name (Exodus 3:14). It is one of the most famous verses in the Old Testament. Hayah means "existed" or "was" in Hebrew; "ehyeh" is the first person singular present/future form. Ehyeh asher ehyeh is generally interpreted to mean I am that I am (King James Bible and others), yet, as indicated, is most literally translated as "I-shall-be who I-shall-be."

 

The word Ehyeh is used a total of 43 places in the Old Testament, where it is usually translated as "I will be" -- as is the case for its first occurrence, in Exodus 3:12 -- or "I shall be," as is the case for its final occurrence in Zechariah 8:8. The Tetragrammaton itself may derive from the same verbal root.

 

Another translation is "I shall become." This meaning is more important in relation to what it meant to Moses because he was asking for confirmation on how he was to succeed in getting the release of the Isrealites. God would become whatever was necessary to provide what Moses needed. This is in fact in congruence with the later ideas that God is all-powerful and provides for his people. It is likely not simply an affirmation of his existence.

This goes along with the idea that God is NOT simply something within us all. Nor is the devil just something within us all. These two ideas have nothing in common with the scriptures and are not Biblically supported. Instead they only are supported by human philosophy, which we have already discussed in another forum as not being a religion.

Another post later, I have a class to start.

[Pyrotex]

...Pyro then put forth a few prophecies that seemed to point out that it was fallable (which I reputed.)....

Cwes,

what makes you think you refuted the so-called prophecies I pointed out? What's your reasoning? If the bible is indeed the literal word of a deity, then one must accept that EVERY prophecy had to be both meaningful and came to pass precisely as predicted. If even one prediction turned out to be bogus, that would cast doubt on the authorship. If a few were bogus, then it would settle the matter.

 

So, to refute me, you have to refute ALL of these (and I have LOTS more):

 

Isaiah 19:18, "In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the LORD of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction." There has never been a Jewish city in Egypt. The Canaanite language has been extinct for over 2000 years.

 

Jeremiah (3:17) prophesies that all nations of the earth will embrace Judaism. This has not happened.

 

In 2 Samuel 7:13,16 God says that Solomon's kingdom will last forever. It didn't of course. It was entirely destroyed about 400 years after Solomon's death, never to be rebuilt.

 

Psalms 89, "I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations." But the Davidic line of Kings ended with Zedekiah; there were none during the Babylonian captivity, and there are none today.

 

God renames Jacob twice in Genesis 32:28 and 35:10. God says that Jacob will henceforth be called Israel, but the Bible continues to call him Jacob anyway (47:28-29). And even God himself calls him Jacob in Genesis 46:2. 32:28, 35:10.

 

Contrary to the prophecy in Genesis 48:21, Joseph died in Egypt, not Israel. (Genesis 50:24)

 

Those who do as God says will never be infertile (neither will their cows!) and will never get sick. Deuteronomy 7:14-15

 

Joshua 8:28 says that Ai was never again occupied after it was destroyed by Joshua. But Nehemiah 7:32 lists it among the cities of Israel at the time of the Babylonian captivity.

 

And in 1 Kings 22:22, God puts a "lying spirit" in the mouth of his prophets.

[cwes99_03]

That's pretty weak Pyro. You honestly believe that all prophecy has already been fulfilled? Are you saying that there aren't some that are still waiting to be fulfilled?

I refuted the few that I have covered so far because I was able to show that you didn't understand the prophecy as it was stated (did you read up on my post and consider the evidence that i gave for why I disagreed with your supposed unfulfilled prophecy?). Perhaps I am wrong, as it has been shown here that this is a subjective study since many here refuse to believe in something that they can't see (at least as far as religion is concerned, since many believe in the Higgs particle.)

 

Then if it can be agreed that some of those prophecies that you believed were unfulfilled were misunderstood, then I have cast doubt on your ability to understand prophecy (much the same way you just cited my inability to prove every prophecy to mean that all prophecy are inaccurate or at the very least happenstance.)

[Pyrotex]

That's pretty weak Pyro. You honestly believe that all prophecy has already been fulfilled? Are you saying that there aren't some that are still waiting to be fulfilled?...

Don't mix biblical prophecy with particle physics, Cwes. It generates arguments that are patently ludicrous. It might even make one look silly.

 

You 'refuted' just one arguement for an invalid prophecy, and even that is subject to interpretation.

 

If all prophecies that never come true, are just "gonna come true SOME day" then you open yourself up to a level of gullibility that is truly hard to fathom. Anybody can prophesy ANYTHING at all, and by this so-called logic, it's "a miraculous prophecy"!!! Sure.

 

If prophecies have NO deadline, then they are by definition worthless. Anything that a brain-crazed drunk in a New York City alley says will come true SOME DAY, if you just wait long enough. Does that make it "prophecy"? You know and I know and all our readers know this, Cwes:

 

If you had found those same prophecies, word for word, in an old copy of Sports Illustrated, instead of in The Bible, you would never have given them a second thought.

 

Then there are the prophecies that cannot come true, ever, because (e.g.) the Canaanite language has been extinct for 2 millenia, or because (e.g.) there are no such things as "dragons" or "satyrs".

 

You suggest that *I* just don't understand prophecy the way it should be understood. I see a pattern here, Cwes. When someone does not accept your reasoning, it's always because "they just aren't _____ enough!!!" Where the blank is filled in with such as "smart", "educated", "open-minded", "right-minded", "sincere", whatever.

 

I'm sorry, Cwes, but that dog just won't hunt any more.

 

P.S.: {This section EDITED Sunday night} Tell you what. Let's make this short. Explain just this one prophecy: Isaiah 19:18. There's only one rule. Since the New Testament was intended to "complete" or "fulfill" the OT, you have to show that the prophecy was fullfilled by, say 400 AD. The ball's in your court.

[HydrogenBond]

Prophesies need to be taken symbolically and not literally. The number seven is the number of days to create the universe (in bible tradition). The new heavens and earth does not reform until the end of revelations. At that point everthing would have been forfilled.

 

Many years back I tried to approach prophesies in a logical way. The way I did this was to interpret the warning at the end of revelations "not to take away or add anything" as being a hint instead of a warning. So what I did was outline the bible, new and old testament, for all the prophesies ,irregardless whether they are assumed forfilled or not. Using just this data set, i.e, 10% or so of the bible, the idea was to arrange just these quotes until a story would appear. The goal was to use every quote. This forfills the warning/hint not to add or take away anything.

 

Although this approach is logical and consistent with the warning/hint, not a single person, I have talked too, can accept the approach because they all wish to add their own two cents and/or leave out those things they are not sure of, inspite of the warning. Go figure?

 

What assembling the puzzle does is have an unconscious impact due to the thinking and obsession with the difficult puzzle. Eventually, the unconscious mind begins to animate all the characters within, such that the good and evil within consolidates arounds all these extreme symbols due to the programming caused by the building process. It is sort of an induce mystical psychosis. This is far more humane to external culture as a whole, but nevertheless very dangerous to any individual so inclined to try. Maybe it is better to stay in the shallow waters of reason because the deep waters of faith can become very treacherous.

 

Many people who get deep, even in traditional approaches, essentially program their unconscious minds. They begin to project the unconscious animations into reality, never realizing these are parts of them. Years back David Koresh, who went to destruction, was a good example of what not to do. He saw himself as a prophet of God, yet with all the software active within, the antichrist software was also playing. Since he projected this as being connected to culture, it unconsciously became part of his outward personality. He began doing the very things he was preparing against becuase of the charisma created. If he stopped the projection and realized he was both good and evil characters at the same time the result may have turned out differently.

[ughaibu]

None of which has anything to do with the Bible's authorship. Why not start a new thread, it sounds interesting.