Is the Bible the inspired word of God?

[outhouse]

Yup, that is what I'm saying too. Hypothetically speaking, literature inspired by a benevolent, omniscient creator God would be timeless, universally approachable, and lacking all the telltale characteristics of a uniquely human perspective, such as xenophobia. The entire OT is basically a long-winded apologetic for extreme xenophobia. Therefore, it doesn't seem to be inspired, to me. The NT comes a little closer here and there, but defeats itself with the claim that there is only one path to God, belonging to one religious ideology embraced by one particular group of humans. Such a claim simply could not come from a benevolent, omniscient creator deity.

well in the OT we see a merger of two previous gods into one, yahweh has always been in a state of evolution lol through history.

[short version and missing content but here goes its worse then what I state ] Shasu tribe had their version. Passed on down to Cannanites as a subdeity for a very short period with El as the father of the pantheon of deity children [what 72 of them]

Israelites formed after 1200 BC and were polytheistic and added El and Yahweh together and merged them after a divorce with Yahweh. Of course at certain time period Asherah was married to El as well.

then after the merger in 622 BC in which not everyone converted and we see this in all scripture and fables Yahweh actually stays stable for another 600 years until jesus pops in the picture and is merged much like El was merged. and then of couse later on a holy ghost is merged.

then later on islam redefines yahweh again before john smith redifines yahwey.


its almost laughable at how history is purposely forgotten by every person that ever mutters the phrase god when they speak and attribute mythology to him, yes he, god is clearly male, which is another human trait it never stops

 

[sojourner]

the language and other reations are not always consistent with others who claim revelation

I never said they were.

where is the evidence for this, assuming god exists?

Metaphor doesn't depend upon evidence.

 

[Alceste]

well in the OT we see a merger of two previous gods into one, yahweh has always been in a state of evolution lol through history.

[short version and missing content but here goes its worse then what I state ] Shasu tribe had their version. Passed on down to Cannanites as a subdeity for a very short period with El as the father of the pantheon of deity children [what 72 of them]

Israelites formed after 1200 BC and were polytheistic and added El and Yahweh together and merged them after a divorce with Yahweh. Of course at certain time period Asherah was married to El as well.

then after the merger in 622 BC in which not everyone converted and we see this in all scripture and fables Yahweh actually stays stable for another 600 years until jesus pops in the picture and is merged much like El was merged. and then of couse later on a holy ghost is merged.

then later on islam redefines yahweh again before john smith redifines yahwey.


its almost laughable at how history is purposely forgotten by every person that ever mutters the phrase god when they speak and attribute mythology to him, yes he, god is clearly male, which is another human trait it never stops

That's interesting, but you wouldn't need to know anything about the history of the Canaanites to make sense of the word of God, if such a thing existed.

 

[waitasec]

I never said they were.

you said

If their language and other reactions are consistent with those of others who claim revelation

this statement implies that...even though most "revelations" are inconsistent with other revelations.

Metaphor doesn't depend upon evidence.

don't skirt the question. you claim god works through human agency, that isn't a metaphor, it is a claim. where is the evidence for that claim?

 

[outhouse]

That's interesting, but you wouldn't need to know anything about the history of the Canaanites to make sense of the word of God, if such a thing existed.

sure you would.

As the the Canaanite governement and civilization crumbled, they became Israelites as other semetic crumbled civilizations joined them, mainly from Mesopotamia and we have a huge melting pot of people and deities.

to understand Israelite religion and their created deities, we must first understand what influenced them to begin to understand the evolutionary steps of the creation of the god concept in scripture.

a fact is, the god concept has always been in a state of evolution, and we need to understand each step clearly.

 

[sojourner]

this statement implies that...even though most "revelations" are inconsistent with other revelations.

Did you read the word "if" in there? It implies no such thing.

you claim god works through human agency, that isn't a metaphor, it is a claim.

Nope. It's a metaphor too.

 

[waitasec]

Did you read the word "if" in there? It implies no such thing.

and? what does that if mean...
is it or not?

Nope. It's a metaphor too.

ok fair enough...

i'll give you that one, with the understanding that this metaphor does not apply to all

 

[Alceste]

sure you would.

As the the Canaanite governement and civilization crumbled, they became Israelites as other semetic crumbled civilizations joined them, mainly from Mesopotamia and we have a huge melting pot of people and deities.

to understand Israelite religion and their created deities, we must first understand what influenced them to begin to understand the evolutionary steps of the creation of the god concept in scripture.

a fact is, the god concept has always been in a state of evolution, and we need to understand each step clearly.

I mean, hypothetically speaking, if the central claim of monotheism were true, that a benevolent, all knowing entity created the universe and has a particular interest in the thoughts and deeds of human beings, and that being wrote a book, you wouldn't need to know anything about the Canaanites to understand it. Of course if a normal tribe of human beings wrote it, different scenario entirely.

 

[outhouse]

I mean, hypothetically speaking, if the central claim of monotheism were true, that a benevolent, all knowing entity created the universe and has a particular interest in the thoughts and deeds of human beings, and that being wrote a book, you wouldn't need to know anything about the Canaanites to understand it. Of course if a normal tribe of human beings wrote it, different scenario entirely.

I know its just me

but I see that as picking up a deity at a certain state of evolution and defining him by that one point in time.



the problem with after 622 BC when they started to get away from polytheism, is scripture does not reflect what the total population believed. it only reflects what the religious leaders wanted them to believe. the switch to monotheism around 622 BC didnt mean they were all monotheist, just that is the time they started the transition.


the problem we have is the legends in the first 5 books all predate monotheism, and were redacted to look as if it had always been that way.


for me, the book evolved for way to long to pick a point in its evolution and claim at this point I want a snap shot of god and thats how I will look at him from here on out.

they claim its the same god but it has never been the same god.

the ever changing jewish god is not the changing god of christianity and definatly not the same god as islam.

if you want to claim a god past 400 AD then I can follow as its gone stagnent after the volution stopped.




BUT now that I understand you, people refuse the past because it reveal's the truth and reality they would never accept.

So prevous influences are completely ignored on purpose.


part of many religions dogma, is to refuse knowledge. Its teachers are all to blaim for letting it get this far out of hand.

 

[sojourner]

and? what does that if mean

It means that all revelations are not consistent.

i'll give you that one, with the understanding that this metaphor does not apply to all

Of course not. Metaphors rarely (if ever) apply universally.

 

[sojourner]

they claim its the same god but it has never been the same god.

Right here is the rub. If "they" refer to the writers, I think you've got the wrong "they." If "they" refer to the teachers, I think you've hit the nail on the head.

 

[waitasec]

It means that all revelations are not consistent.

gee i wonder why?

Of course not. Metaphors rarely (if ever) apply universally.

this is the thing i do not understand.
if it rains in southern california it rains on southern californians

same logic does not apply when it comes to metaphors about god.


but i guess you will come back with something like...
not everyone lives in southern california

am i right?

 

[jtartar]

So in another thread I'm doing called Biblical Contradictions I'm having quite a few people post that they don't believe the bible is God's inspired word. If you do believe it is why? And if you don't please also give a reason as to why not.

Vadergirl,
I have studied the Holy Bible for over 50 years, and I believe withhout a doubt, that the Word of God is inspired by God and is inerrant.
I believe this, not just because the Bible says so itself, 2Tim 3:16,17, 1Thes 2:13, 2Pet 1:21,22. Consider also that Jesus said that God's WORD is truth, John 17:17.
These scriptures, it would seem, would make it a requirement of all Christians to believe God's word, 1Pet 1:25.
Nevertheless, God does not want His people to believe just because He says everything, without proof. First notice what God says about His creation being proof of His existence, Rom 1:16-23.
Then let us reason on a few things that no person on earth knew, but the writers of the Bible wrote about, such as the shape of the earth 1,513 years before Christ, Job 26:7,10. Moses wrote Job telling that the earth is hung on nothing and that it is circular. No man knew this at that time, or even for hundreds of years. Isaiah wrote the same at Isa 40:22. A very simple thing too, is a statement by Moses that the hare chews it's cud, Deul 14:7. Many men thought the Bible was wrong about this, but in the 19th century men finally realized that the Bible was true all along.
A very interesting statement is made in the scriptures about a swaddling band of clouds around the earth before the flood, Job 38:9, Prov 8:28. Notice also Gen 1:6-8 where we are told about waters above and waters below a heavens. What is very telling about this thick cloud is that it did not allow the sun and the moon to actually be seen from earth, only the light from them, Gen 1:3-5, 14-18. Now, here is something that everyone should recognize, but scientists refuse to understand that this swaddling band of clouds limited the amount of Carbon 14, which men use to date fossils, which, because of the small amount of carbon 14 still in the fossil, would make these fossils that had lived under this cloud, appear much older than they really are.
Out of all the things that can be used to prove the Bible was actually authored by God, the most telling is the many prophecies in the Bible. Almost one third oof the Bible is prophecy. Now remember, the Bible was written by 40 men, over a period of 1,610 years, and men wrote prophecies that came true exactly as prophesied, exactly on time. Many of these prophecies, especially the ones by Daniel were unexplainable, even by Daniel. In one place Daniel read a prophecy written by Jeremiah, and realized exactly when the nation of Babylon would be conquered, and the Israelites would be set free, a period of seventy years, Dan 9:2, Jere 25:11,12, 29:10.
Another prophecy that is very interesting, that was understood by the Jews was the prophecy recorded by Daniel at Dan 9:24-27,where it told about the coming of the Messiah at about the end of this prophecy of Seventy Weeks, which was actually a period of senenty weeks of YEARS, 490 years. The Jews, because of knowing this prophecy, were expecting the Messiah, when Jesus appeared, Luke 3:15.
There are many prophecies just like these, which prove beyond a doubt, to me, that no human being, or a group of humans could do this. We know today that no man knows what will happen even tomorrow, Ecc 8:7, 10:14. God knows!!!

 

[sojourner]

gee i wonder why?



this is the thing i do not understand.
if it rains in southern california it rains on southern californians

same logic does not apply when it comes to metaphors about god.


but i guess you will come back with something like...
not everyone lives in southern california

am i right?

"Rain" is of one kind of importance to a desert dweller, and of a completely different importance to someone who lives in Seattle.

 

[waitasec]

"Rain" is of one kind of importance to a desert dweller, and of a completely different importance to someone who lives in Seattle.

i was right...

we are not talking about "importance" or "significance"
were are talking about verification.


2 desert dwellers with the ability to see and feel the rain agree it is raining...

2 desert dwellers with the ability to understand metaphor may not agree on who god is.

 

[sojourner]

i was right...

we are not talking about "importance" or "significance"
were are talking about verification.


2 desert dwellers with the ability to see and feel the rain agree it is raining...

2 desert dwellers with the ability to understand metaphor may not agree on who god is.

yeah, but you're trying to turn metaphor into some kind of evidence. I never said that it was evidence. Not everyone dwells in southern California. Even to those who dwell in southern California, to one rain will be a "blessing." To another, it may be seen as a "curse." To a third, it may merely be a meteorological phenomenon.

 

[InfidelRiot]

The only reason that needs to be given for the bible not being the divinely inspired word of god is that it was written by fallible man.

 

[sojourner]

The only reason that needs to be given for the bible not being the divinely inspired word of god is that it was written by fallible man.

It can be divinely inspired an still be written by fallible human beings.

 

[waitasec]

It can be divinely inspired an still be written by fallible human beings.

art for example...however i have a problem with tagging the label divine to inspiration.

it's almost as if the work of shakespeare isn't as meaningful as a psalmist