Is the bible divinely inspired?

[Segestan]

A collection of texts compiled by the minds and hands of men. If the seeking of personal goodness can be defined as a Divine trait ; than the Bible is Divinely Inspired by the goodness inherent in all men.
God is the idea of a being , a one who is perfect in all of his personal attributes. The Perfectness of God is measured by men not any other. It is the ideas of mans goodness that is directed idealistically into a God personification. Man is individual by nature design. Personal worth requires self measurement. The self is left blinded of cosmic truth while in the temporal condition. It is this temporal condition of self being that allows the individual the ability to imagine an all-powerful creator god. Imagines a God who must , by default be perfect in all manner of personal measurement. Imagines that it must all have orginated by the Will of God and not by the will of mere mortal man. But it is mortal man who seeks what is God. And it is mortal man who must measure other worthiness by those high minded dreams of self worth.
The Bible is only as inspired as those who read it's words and deduct that those sort of ideas are the kind of acts that this life should be measured by. That it is Goodness that gives personal worth not those things designed nor acquired in this life that are wealth.
The Bible is the Souls way of wanting this life a better , a more blissful experience.

So No it's not inspired by God. But is rather an inspiration of mans desire to be all that he thinks is Divine.

regards,

 

[EnhancedSpirit]

The first question which the thoughtful reader of the Bible has to answer is, What importance and value am I to attach to the contents of the Scriptures?

Were the writers of the Bible so many fanatics moved by oracular frenzy? Were they merely poetically inspired and intellectually elevated? or, were they, as they claimed to be, and as the Scriptures affirm they were, moved by the Holy Spirit to act as the voice of God to a sinful world?

Were the writers of the Bible inspired by God in a manner no other men were in any other age of the world? Were they invested and endowed with the power to disclose mysteries and point men upward and onward to that which otherwise would have been an impenetrable future?

One can readily appreciate the fact that the answer to these questions is of supreme importance. If the Bible is not inspired in the strictest sense of the word then it is worthless, for it claims to be God's Word, and if its claims are spurious then its statements are unreliable and its contents are untrustworthy.

If, on the other hand, it can be shown to the satisfaction of every impartial inquirer that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant and infallible(in it's original context), then we have a starting point from which we can advance to the conquest of all truth.

 

[James the Persian]

Be careful here. It would be simplistic and, therefore, misleading to give the impression of a Biblical LXX followed by a much later Masoretic tradition. While it's true that instances of what could be called LXX 'Vorlage' have been found among the DSS material, so have 'pre-Samaritan' and 'proto-Masoretic', with the latter predominating. Furthermore, documents in some locations (e.g., Masada) were exclusively 'proto-Masoretic'.

While the DSS has legitimatized the LXX, it has not given it anything approaching exclusive legitimacy. On the contrary, the dominance and distribution of the 'proto-Masoretic' finds suggests that the LXX Vorlage, like the pre-Samaritan, were secondary variants.

Sorry. I wasn't trying to imply that the LXX was the only valid version of the OT, just that you cannot argue that the MT is more valid than the LXX. It seems fairly clear that there were variant versions of the Scriptures in the pre-Christian Holy Land and that one set became the LXX (which was accepted by diaspora Jews before Christ) and another set became the MT, the contents of which were only settled in the post-Christian era. In my opinion both are legitimate versions of the Scriptures but it is odd, given the importance of the LXX for the early Church, for a Christian to prefer the MT over the LXX. In effect, I'd say that the LXX is more appropriate for Christians than any other version. In any case, however, the point I was trying to make - that even the setting of the OT canon of the Bible is much more complex than sola scripturalists tend to believe - still stands.

James

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In my opinion both are legitimate versions of the Scriptures but it is odd, given the importance of the LXX for the early Church, for a Christian to prefer the MT over the LXX. In effect, I'd say that the LXX is more appropriate for Christians than any other version. In any case, however, the point I was trying to make - that even the setting of the OT canon of the Bible is much more complex than sola scripturalists tend to believe - still stands.

The "importance of the LXX for the early Church" had nothing to do with its superiority, of couse, but, rather, with the fact that it was translated and, therefore, accessible - a simple case of selection bias. Again, the DSS work suggests it (or, more correctly, its Vorlage) to be a secondary variant among what Tov has characterized as "a pluriformity" of textual variants.

None of this is to suggest that the Septuagint is not a valuable witness to one set of textual traditions, and I keep a copy of the The Septuagint Online Bible bookmarked in a folder along with the JPS. In fact, were it not for the LXX and the Targums, I would not have selected my current username.

 

[James the Persian]

The "importance of the LXX for the early Church" had nothing to do with its superiority, of couse, but, rather, with the fact that it was translated and, therefore, accessible - a simple case of selection bias. Again, the DSS work suggests it (or, more correctly, its Vorlage) to be a secondary variant among what Tov has characterized as "a pluriformity" of textual variants.

None of this is to suggest that the Septuagint is not a valuable witness to one set of textual traditions, and I keep a copy of the The Septuagint Online Bible bookmarked in a folder along with the JPS. In fact, were it not for the LXX and the Targums, I would not have selected my current username.

It sounds to me like we're basically agreed on the value and legitimacy of the LXX. From my (Orthodox) Christian point of view, the LXX is the Christian OT. I have no real problems with the MT, however, and certainly not with Judaism's use of it. Am I right in thinking you are Jewish (whether practicing or secular)? If so, maybe you could clear up something I've often wondered about. Feel free to PM me if you prefer, however, as this might not be the best place to talk about this. What is the position of Maccabees in Judaism? The reason I ask is that these books don't seem to be considered Scripture but the events in them seem to be very important for Jews (i.e. Hanukkah). For us Orthodox, the Maccabees are secondary Scriptures, as I'm sure you're aware. Thanks, and sorry to stray off topic.

James

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From Early Jewish Writings ...

Daniel J. Harrington writes:

"First Maccabees is part of the canon of Scripture in the Roman Catholic, Greek, and Russian Orthodox churches. It is not recognized as Scripture by Protestants and Jews. There has been, however, a puzzling ambivalence about 1 and 2 Maccabees in the Jewish tradition. Hanukkah, which celebrates the cleansing and rededication of the Jerusalem temple in 164 B.C.E. under Judas, is part of the traditional Jewish calendar of festivals. Although it is a minor holiday (except in countries where its proximity to Christmas has made it very significant), the 'biblical basis' for it lies in books not regarded as canonical. Since it is likely that 1 Maccabees was composed in Hebrew, its absence from the canon of Hebrew Scriptures is somewhat puzzling. These puzzlements have led some scholars to suspect that at some point in the first century there was a Jewish reaction against the Maccabees and what they stood for, and a deliberate attempt to push them out of the sacred tradition of Judaism. Perhaps 'messianic' claims were being made about Judas Maccabeus or some other figure who traced his ancestry back to the Maccabean movement. Perhaps in light of failed uprising against the Romans by Jews claiming to follow the example of Judas and his brothers, the custodians of the Jewish tradition found the Maccabees too controversial and dangerous. The revival of interest in the Maccabees as men of action and noble warriors in the modern state of Israel suggests that these suspicions have some basis in fact." (Invitation to the Apocrypha, p. 135)​

​

 

[DeepShadow]

Mistakes during interpretation. What remarkable mistakes! And if you have realized them(well to some extent) what about the Correction! Or should everyone just follow blind faith.

Are those really the only two alternatives?! There have been many attempts to make corrections for translation errors, and while such retranslations are never perfect, it's a process that can enrich a person's study of scripture.

You can scoff all you want about the errors of those who have translated it along the way, but there is a lot of truth there that can enrich your life if you try it. Try looking for inspiration instead of mistakes.

FWIW I also feel in my heart that the Bible is inspired. I know that doesn't meet many people's definition of objective proof, but that's okay, I'm not trying to prove it to you. If you want proof, try the following process:

1) Find some parts you like.
2) Apply them in your life.
3) After a few weeks, consider how these new things have changed your life.
4) If they improved you, keep those parts.
5) If they didn't improve you, throw those parts out
6) Go back to step 1, but this time pick something else to apply.

 

[DeepShadow]

If you are saying that God personally revealed to you that the Bible is true, then you are trusting in yourself.

Well, I trust in myself and God, together. Sure, I can lie to myself and pretend I've had inspiration, but in my heart I know it's a lie.

IF God really revealed this to you, then you are a prophet and should be revered as such. Or perhaps we should refer to you as "NetDoc of Arc."

Revered? I thought the testimony of Jesus was the spirit of prophecy...surely it's not that rare...

Maybe this belongs in another topic, but I believe the personal witness of the Spirit really is the best evidence there is about the divine origin of anything.

 

[greatcalgarian]

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/index.shtml

Read the above for better understanding on OT

 

[greatcalgarian]

"The Bible, as we know it today, is the end product of a long process of writing, editing and selecting of literature primarily concerned with Jewish religious concepts, and, as such, it has a long literary history. It cannot be assumed that a group of men composed writings echoing what they thought God was dictating. The Bible reflects historical situations, human events, men's reactions to these happenings, and the belief that God was also involved in events."
Quote from Gerald A Larue, professor emeritus of Biblical History and Archaeology at the University of Southern California, Adjunct Professor of Gerontology at U.S.C., Chairman of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, and faculty member of the Institute for Inquiry.

 

[Scott1]

"The Bible, as we know it today,

I'm sure Mr. Larue is a swell guy, but who cares?

I can give you 100 quotes from professors who believe in the Divine insiration of the Bible... what makes this one so special?

 

[greatcalgarian]

:jiggy: Nothing special, just to entice you to read his whole book

 

[greatcalgarian]

Chapter 8 ?Who Were the Hebrews?

ACCORDING to biblical tradition, the Hebrews are peoples descended from Shem, one of Noah's sons, through Eber, the eponymous ancestor, and Abraham. Gen. 7:22 f., reports that the flood destroyed all life except that in Noah's ark; consequently, the whole human family descended from Noah and his sons: Japheth, Ham and Shem. As yet, not all of the names of eponymous ancestors in the family lines can be identified,1 but some probabilities are listed in Chart 6.

From Shem, through Arpachshad and Shelah came Eber, the eponymous ancestor of the Hebrews, and from his descendants through Peleg, Reu, Sereg and Nahor came Terah, the father of Abram and his brothers Nahor and Haran. It becomes clear that if "Hebrews" are descendants of Eber, then others besides those of Abraham's line would be included (see Gen. 10:25-27).

Read Gen. 12-25
With Abraham the story of the Hebrews begins, and it is clearly stated that Hebrew origins lay outside Canaan. The summons to leave his ancestral home and journey to Canaan is accompanied by a promise (Gen. 12:2) that becomes a submotif in patriarchal accounts, re-appearing again and again (cf. Gen. 13:14 f., 15:5 f., 18:10, 22:17, 26:24, 28:13 f., 32:12 f., 35:9 ff., 48:16), finally taking covenantal form (Gen. 17:14 ff.). The promise has two parts: nationhood and divine blessing or protection. The precise location of the nation-to-be is not specified but was, of course, known to those hearing or reading the account. The promise of blessing signified the unique and particularistic bond between Yahweh and his followers, so that the enemies of Abraham or the nation were enemies of Yahweh, and those befriending Abraham and/or the nation would be blessed. With this assurance, Abraham journeyed to Canaan, Egypt, the Negeb, Hebron, Gezer, Beer-sheba and back to Hebron where he and his wife Sarah died.
Go to the following for more on the origin......
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/chap8.html

 

[samgeorge11]

How many mistakes would you like me to point out in this "Divinely Inspired Bibble". I'm sick of reading contradictions and fallacies in it. It made about a million people(Germany, France, Asian Christians) skeptical about Christianity when it talks about Creation of Humans (Creationism) infact reject christianity. Creationism is not only rejected by Science but was also rejected by the second Vatican council in 1960s.
You want prophecies in a book, written ages ago; proved and confirmed by the present science as well, read the Quran, just read the translation and then its upto you to decide which is DIVINELY INSPIRED.
Talk about the embryology. Water cycle, solar system........ just pick a topic its all in there with colossal detail.
As we have seen today science actually confirms what Quran had already said. Scientists are only discovering the laws of the creator, because everything in nature is caused, by secondary causes, regulated by the primary cause, the creator.
Karen Armstrong, the author of "Holy War", says, "This fact has never been acknowledged in the west that all the scientific and technological development that we have today, we owe it to the Arabs and Muslims".