Bibliolatry

[usfan]

From your posts you do not understand the concept.

Just because you do not understand the sciences

Your beliefs were indoctrinated into you.

..not much topical debate, here.. just ad hom. Feel better?

Ignoring my points, and accusing lying, ignorance, or other personal 'to the man' 'arguments' kills any rational debate. I can only assume that is the goal.

..probably no point in continuing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You still have not specified WHAT was untrue, but only asserted it as a general smear. I assume that is and was the intent.

I stated a fact. Now please you are repeating false claims. Though not lying it is getting close. In fact when you call it a "smear" you place the burden of proof upon yourself. You also need to learn who has the burden of proof when claims are made.

 

[Subduction Zone]

..not much topical debate, here.. just ad hom. Feel better?

Ignoring my points, and accusing lying, ignorance, or other personal 'to the man' 'arguments' kills any rational debate. I can only assume that is the goal.

..probably no point in continuing.

There is no need for a debate. You keep repeating clams that demonstrate that you do not understand the concept of evidence. Also quoting out of context is dishonest. It can be a form of lying and I can tell that you do not want to lie.

You have demonstrated that you do not understand the concept of evidence. I have offered to help you get over that lack. It is not that hard to learn the basics. Why run away? Most run because they are afraid.

 

[Wandering Monk]

This is not a debate thread about the reliability of the Bible. That should be clear from the OP. Please start a different thread if you want to debate that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is not a debate thread about the reliability of the Bible. That should be clear from the OP. Please start a different thread if you want to debate that.

I think that the poster is based his Bible idolatry on the mistaken beliefs that the Bible is reliable. He made a false claim about the reliability of the Bible and did not like it when his error was explained to him. But I will do my best to steer the conversation back to the OP..

 

[usfan]

This is not a debate thread about the reliability of the Bible. That should be clear from the OP. Please start a different thread if you want to debate that.

I am not debating that, though it is an assumption for those you label, 'bible idolaters!'

My points correspond to the OP. I examine the concept of 'Bible Worship!', and parse it into these categories:
1. A rare possibility with some individuals, who ignore God, and actually worship the book.
2. A smear used to disparage those who believe in Divine Inspiration of the Bible.

I perceive the purpose of the OP to be #2, because of no examples of #1, and the general assumption that any who believe in Divine Inspiration of the Bible are labeled, 'Idolators!'

The accusation i am refuting is, "The Bible claims to be God's Word. That is circular reasoning!"

There are phrases or sections that 'claim' Divine Dictation, but not the bible as a whole, nor the books contained therein.

Whether one believes in Divine Inspiration is something else. It is not demanded by the biblical texts

The Central Question is, 'How does one determine IF... these books are Inspired Truth?'

But i will respect the wishes of the OP, and not engage in this thread, since my contributions have been misconstrued.
Good luck.

 

[Wandering Monk]

I am not debating that, though it is an assumption for those you label, 'bible idolaters!'

My points correspond to the OP. I examine the concept of 'Bible Worship!', and parse it into these categories:
1. A rare possibility with some individuals, who ignore God, and actually worship the book.
2. A smear used to disparage those who believe in Divine Inspiration of the Bible.

I perceive the purpose of the OP to be #2, because of no examples of #1, and the general assumption that any who believe in Divine Inspiration of the Bible are labeled, 'Idolators!'





But i will respect the wishes of the OP, and not engage in this thread, since my contributions have been misconstrued.
Good luck.

I started this thread because of a post at Christian Forums. Unless this guy is a troll, there really are people who worship the Bible:

The Bible is God

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The Bible is the Book written by God (through various authors).
In 2 Tim 3, God explains what the Bible is.

Well, God told ME that He didn't say half of what's in it and that men wrote it and anything He truly willed will be evident in reality. If you are using the bible to prove the bible's divine nature ... congrats, that's idolatry.

And its not God's words as He moved on people because you say so?

Nope, 'cause God told me. Reality verifies men wrote it. And edited. And translated. And made things up. And took out the parts they didn't like. Since my God is more honest, I'll go with Him.

He said, in tones that would have been appropriate from Moses on the mount, 'If Jesus Himself came down and told me that there was something wrong with this Book, I would turn my back upon Him and HOLD TO THE BOOK." (Caps reflect his tone....)

I've seen that kind of thing here and on other religious forums. To have the hubris to tell God He's lying because a book says otherwise is amazing. I've actually been told that God MUST do what the bible says (or they phrase it "He cannot go against the bible"). The bible wears the pants in the relationship in their view.

God said through Moses, quoted by Jesus 'man does not live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God' That sort of devotion is Godward and not away from God

Jesus also said 'Sanctify them in the true. Thy word is truth

Does God only speak through the bible? Is He not allowed to have opinions after humans closed the canon?

Why pray to Him if He can't talk except through a horcrux like Voldie's diary?

Jesus and the apostles appear to have believed in plenary inspiration and so being disciplined to studying the bible would even be commanded by God as the Bible is God breathed as per 2 Tim 3:16 "theo pnuestos" God breathed

Y'all realize the bible as you knew it wasn't done up yet, right? Jesus can say nothing of the NT because it'd be decades after he died before anyone bothered to make it up.

However, since it does have the words that were recorded that God said, it does help build relationships as much as my letters to and fro from my wife to be (years ago) were used to build relationship.

But some people act like the letters ARE the person.

Yet Christ believed in the story of Noah

Referencing a previous story does not imply belief in its veracity. I can quote Star Wars but that doesn't make it history.

And Job (Old Testament) mentions 'if I had hid my sin like Adam ....."

Adam never existed and neither did Job. Job is kinda like how people did philosophy back then: write up fake conversations to explore topics.

Part of the message of Jesus, Paul and Peter would be they believed the accounts of Adam, Eve and Noah

Jesus believed Satan was the Father of Lies and yet there isn't a single scene where Satan appears as an actual character (and not just mentioned by some 3rd party) where he lies. At all. Jesus said lots of things that don't hold up to scrutiny.

If, over time, a number is now in error because a single dot that is erased and then transcribed to the next copy (In Hebrew), then yes, there are errors. But that doesn't make it any less true to its message.

I ate Grandma.
I ate, Grandma.

One change. Big difference.

What I am saying is that you do not need to elevate the Bible to infallibility in order to believe in God and accept Jesus Christ as your savior.

Exactly. I felt so much better after the epiphany that God doesn't need the bible to exist and interact with us.

 

[Kenny]

Nope, 'cause God told me. Reality verifies men wrote it. And edited. And translated. And made things up. And took out the parts they didn't like. Since my God is more honest, I'll go with Him.

Not sure which god.

I ate Grandma.
I ate, Grandma.

One change. Big difference.

EXACTLY! And thus, because we have thousands of copies and fragments in multiple languages, we can throw out "I ate Grandma".

I think you've got it!

 

[Wandering Monk]

.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Not sure which god.


EXACTLY! And thus, because we have thousands of copies and fragments in multiple languages, we can throw out "I ate Grandma".

I think you've got it!

make it up??? well... I see y'all are running away with your presuppositions...
could it be that eyewitnesses are quoting their sources

but in the case of 'man shall not live by bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God' that was Jesus in Matt 4 quoting Moses

 

[Kenny]

make it up??? well... I see y'all are running away with your presuppositions...
could it be that eyewitnesses are quoting their sources

but in the case of 'man shall not live by bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God' that was Jesus in Matt 4 quoting Moses

True... true... it remains the words of God as the Holy Spirit moved on men.

 

[Clear]

If a Christian believes the Bible is God-breathed.....then, he believes it's God!

In 2 Tim 3, God explains what the Bible is.

I don't particularly want to enter this debate other than to make a couple of very specific points.
First, though I am deeply Christian, it is apparent that debates such as this often are caused by Christians who, in their desires to present Christianity in a good light, often overstate their position and make claims for the bible, claims which the bible does not make for itself.

For example, Tosca1 Claimed : " If a Christian believes the Bible is God-breathed.....then, he believes it's God! "
This is a silly claim that is easily disproved by its own irrational logic. God is God. A Book (even an inspired book) is not God. Christians often conflate principles in an illogical and irrational manner. I do not think they do Christianity service by doing this.

Another example : Tosca1 Claimed : "In 2 Tim 3, God explains what the Bible is".
This is a confused statement. While 2 Tim 3:16 tells us that "All writing, inspired of God [is] profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness."
“ Πασα γραφε Θεοπνευστοσ και ωφελεμοσ προσ διδασκαλιαν, προσ ελεγχον,.... etc This is simply a generic statement about all writings that are inspired and how they are usefull. It is not a definitive statement about the texts within the biblical library..

I am honestly not sure how one can define a useful and working definition of "bibliolotry". I don't think it typically means that individuals worship the bible AS God, but I think Christians are often guilty of ascribing divine characteristics to the biblical texts which they do not have (e.g. exclusivity, inerrancy, etc.)

Clear
εισιτωσεω

 

[sojourner]

If the Bible is God-breathed, and if God does not lie......then, every word in the Bible must be true. That means, believing in the infallibility, innerancy and authority of the Bible, is not bibliolatry.

It is simply believing in what God says about the Bible.

First, Timothy was writing about the Hebrew texts, because none of the Greek texts were considered “scripture” at that time.

Second, at the time of writing, Timothy, itself, was not scripture and was not considered to be “God-breathed.” Therefore, what it says cannot be irrefutably “infallible.” Using Timothy as some absolute litmus for the texts is irrational.