|
Post by What Hat on Dec 12, 2014 11:14:14 GMT -5
In discussing Hebrews on another thread I came across this comment from a website called gotquestions.org. This book [Hebrews} belongs in the Bible. Therefore, its human author is unimportant. What is important is to treat the book as inspired Scripture as defined in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The Holy Spirit was the divine author of Hebrews, and of all Scripture, even though we don't know who put the physical pen to the physical paper and traced the words. To save looking it up, the verses mentioned (2 Timothy 3:16-17) state, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. But what I am interested in is the idea of divine authorship, with the human author literally just tracing the words, one assumes, as the Holy Spirit makes them appear on the page before him. Do you think this is correct? In a few posts I'll present why I don't think this can be the case, unless someone else gets there first.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 11:59:15 GMT -5
well i don't think that the words appeared physically on the paper and then were just traced over. i believe the words poured out of the author and he wrote them down...
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 12, 2014 14:43:53 GMT -5
well i don't think that the words appeared physically on the paper and then were just traced over. i believe the words poured out of the author and he wrote them down... At least your explanation is plausible. Do you think that the process of being inspired by God, to write, was any different for Paul than it would be for the Christian writers of today? My feeling is that there is no difference, other than that historically the Bible writers witnessed or heard witness of the words and thought of Jesus. No one writing today can lay claim to that experience.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Dec 12, 2014 16:22:36 GMT -5
In discussing Hebrews on another thread I came across this comment from a website called gotquestions.org. This book [Hebrews} belongs in the Bible. Therefore, its human author is unimportant. What is important is to treat the book as inspired Scripture as defined in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The Holy Spirit was the divine author of Hebrews, and of all Scripture, even though we don't know who put the physical pen to the physical paper and traced the words. To save looking it up, the verses mentioned (2 Timothy 3:16-17) state, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. But what I am interested in is the idea of divine authorship, with the human author literally just tracing the words, one assumes, as the Holy Spirit makes them appear on the page before him. Do you think this is correct? In a few posts I'll present why I don't think this can be the case, unless someone else gets there first. Maybe we should ask the same question concerning other sacred manuscripts. Are the by "divine authorship?"
The Vedas are one such manuscripts. There are four Vedas, the Rig Veda, Sama Veda, Yajur Veda and Atharva Veda.
"The Vedas are the primary texts of Hinduism. They also had a vast influence on Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. Traditionally the text of the Vedas was coeval with the universe. Scholars have determined that the Rig Veda, the oldest of the four Vedas, was composed about 1500 B.C., and codified about 600 B.C. It is unknown when it was finally committed to writing, but this probably was at some point after 300 B.C.
The Vedas contain hymns, incantations, and rituals from ancient India. Along with the Book of the Dead, the Enuma Elish, the I Ching, and the Avesta, they are among the most ancient religious texts still in existence. Besides their spiritual value, they also give a unique view of everyday life in India four thousand years ago. The Vedas are also the most ancient extensive texts in an Indo-European language, and as such are invaluable in the study of comparative linguistics." Should we ask the same questions about the Vedas? Is a human author is unimportant? Should we treat them as "inspired Scripture" from the mind of God?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 16:51:51 GMT -5
well i don't think that the words appeared physically on the paper and then were just traced over. i believe the words poured out of the author and he wrote them down... At least your explanation is plausible. Do you think that the process of being inspired by God, to write, was any different for Paul than it would be for the Christian writers of today? My feeling is that there is no difference, other than that historically the Bible writers witnessed or heard witness of the words and thought of Jesus. No one writing today can lay claim to that experience. i would say your correct it is no different than Paul in todays world with the thought that whatever is written should be compared to the OT and NT...
|
|
|
Post by xna on Dec 12, 2014 16:58:45 GMT -5
well i don't think that the words appeared physically on the paper and then were just traced over. i believe the words poured out of the author and he wrote them down... At least your explanation is plausible. Do you think that the process of being inspired by God, to write, was any different for Paul than it would be for the Christian writers of today? My feeling is that there is no difference, other than that historically the Bible writers witnessed or heard witness of the words and thought of Jesus. No one writing today can lay claim to that experience. There is a problem with the "inspired" part; Inspired is as the one who claims it. Even when it's "god's word" direct to one man the "inspired" part can change. Consider something basic like the 10 commandments, where it's said to be written down directly from god to man. Did the holy spirit change it's mind, or did Moses get a different "inspiration" each time? www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.pdf
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 21:00:43 GMT -5
Re Vedas this is argument akin to relativism You cannot compare the Veda to the Bible. ALL "holy books" are not equal. Most I have read absolutely celebrate human nature, and are preoccupied with earth and time. I gave the example of Jacob and Judah in another thread to demonstrate what I see as the inspired nature of our bible.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 12, 2014 21:53:20 GMT -5
The Vedas are way more mystical than the bible. If ever a book concentrated on human nature, war and earthly issues, it's got to be the bible. Have you read the Vedas or the Upanishads?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 12, 2014 21:59:16 GMT -5
In discussing Hebrews on another thread I came across this comment from a website called gotquestions.org. This book [Hebrews} belongs in the Bible. Therefore, its human author is unimportant. What is important is to treat the book as inspired Scripture as defined in 2 Timothy 3:16-17. The Holy Spirit was the divine author of Hebrews, and of all Scripture, even though we don't know who put the physical pen to the physical paper and traced the words. To save looking it up, the verses mentioned (2 Timothy 3:16-17) state, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. But what I am interested in is the idea of divine authorship, with the human author literally just tracing the words, one assumes, as the Holy Spirit makes them appear on the page before him. Do you think this is correct? In a few posts I'll present why I don't think this can be the case, unless someone else gets there first. Maybe we should ask the same question concerning other sacred manuscripts. Are the by "divine authorship?"
The Vedas are one such manuscripts. There are four Vedas, the Rig Veda, Sama Veda, Yajur Veda and Atharva Veda.
"The Vedas are the primary texts of Hinduism. They also had a vast influence on Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. Traditionally the text of the Vedas was coeval with the universe. Scholars have determined that the Rig Veda, the oldest of the four Vedas, was composed about 1500 B.C., and codified about 600 B.C. It is unknown when it was finally committed to writing, but this probably was at some point after 300 B.C.
The Vedas contain hymns, incantations, and rituals from ancient India. Along with the Book of the Dead, the Enuma Elish, the I Ching, and the Avesta, they are among the most ancient religious texts still in existence. Besides their spiritual value, they also give a unique view of everyday life in India four thousand years ago. The Vedas are also the most ancient extensive texts in an Indo-European language, and as such are invaluable in the study of comparative linguistics." Should we ask the same questions about the Vedas? Is a human author is unimportant? Should we treat them as "inspired Scripture" from the mind of God?
I don't know anything about the Vedas, Koran, et cetera, myself. The only sacred text I'd be remotely interested in reading would be the 'Tao te Ching'. But if I'm going to spend an additional hour reading a sacred text, it'll be the Bible because incrementally I'll get more out of it. I'm about 60 years behind on all the other ones.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 12, 2014 22:49:38 GMT -5
Maybe we should ask the same question concerning other sacred manuscripts. Are the by "divine authorship?"
The Vedas are one such manuscripts. There are four Vedas, the Rig Veda, Sama Veda, Yajur Veda and Atharva Veda.
"The Vedas are the primary texts of Hinduism. They also had a vast influence on Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. Traditionally the text of the Vedas was coeval with the universe. Scholars have determined that the Rig Veda, the oldest of the four Vedas, was composed about 1500 B.C., and codified about 600 B.C. It is unknown when it was finally committed to writing, but this probably was at some point after 300 B.C.
The Vedas contain hymns, incantations, and rituals from ancient India. Along with the Book of the Dead, the Enuma Elish, the I Ching, and the Avesta, they are among the most ancient religious texts still in existence. Besides their spiritual value, they also give a unique view of everyday life in India four thousand years ago. The Vedas are also the most ancient extensive texts in an Indo-European language, and as such are invaluable in the study of comparative linguistics." Should we ask the same questions about the Vedas? Is a human author is unimportant? Should we treat them as "inspired Scripture" from the mind of God?
I don't know anything about the Vedas, Koran, et cetera, myself. The only sacred text I'd be remotely interested in reading would be the 'Tao te Ching'. But if I'm going to spend an additional hour reading a sacred text, it'll be the Bible because incrementally I'll get more out of it. I'm about 60 years behind on all the other ones. The Tao Te Ching is well worth the time imo What hat. It doesn't take that long unless you stop to give the words some deep thought. The Vedas are a harder go and there are several. The Rig Veda is probably the best known, but not the best one imo.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Dec 14, 2014 0:14:22 GMT -5
At least your explanation is plausible. Do you think that the process of being inspired by God, to write, was any different for Paul than it would be for the Christian writers of today? My feeling is that there is no difference, other than that historically the Bible writers witnessed or heard witness of the words and thought of Jesus. No one writing today can lay claim to that experience. There is a problem with the "inspired" part; Inspired is as the one who claims it. Even when it's "god's word" direct to one man the "inspired" part can change. Consider something basic like the 10 commandments, where it's said to be written down directly from god to man. Did the holy spirit change it's mind, or did Moses get a different "inspiration" each time? www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.pdfAh, this is a very good example, although it took me a bit to see where you were going with this. (I can be a bit dense sometimes.) Yes, if God literally dictated the words or the thoughts to the writer then you'd think He would take care that at least the i's were dotted and t's crossed. I have similar issues with the Creation story, and other descriptions and explanations within the Bible that reflect the cultural optics and limited scientific knowledge of the writer. If God was dictating the words, you'd think he would take more care to get it exactly right. However, if we take Scripture as "inspired" by God, that is, God motivated the writer in a commonsensical way then these small differences lend more credence to the story rather than less. It is quite astounding, to me anyway, that independent writers and sources would get something that was as close as it was. I feel the same way about inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts. There are notable inconsistencies in the accounts of Jesus after he died. That adds to the veracity of the accounts because the writers wrote the authentic truth as they understood or saw it without trying to varnish or harmonise the accounts. And the important stuff is the same in all four accounts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 4:09:42 GMT -5
Ah, this is a very good example, although it took me a bit to see where you were going with this. (I can be a bit dense sometimes.) Yes, if God literally dictated the words or the thoughts to the writer then you'd think He would take care that at least the i's were dotted and t's crossed. I have similar issues with the Creation story, and other descriptions and explanations within the Bible that reflect the cultural optics and limited scientific knowledge of the writer. If God was dictating the words, you'd think he would take more care to get it exactly right. However, if we take Scripture as "inspired" by God, that is, God motivated the writer in a commonsensical way then these small differences lend more credence to the story rather than less. It is quite astounding, to me anyway, that independent writers and sources would get something that was as close as it was. I feel the same way about inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts. There are notable inconsistencies in the accounts of Jesus after he died. That adds to the veracity of the accounts because the writers wrote the authentic truth as they understood or saw it without trying to varnish or harmonise the accounts. And the important stuff is the same in all four accounts. Whathat, I have no difficulty in believing that the writers of much of what is written in the bible was inspired by the writers’ belief in God but that is very different to saying that they were inspired by God. You have provided nothing as regards the basis for your belief that all the books of the bible were inspired by God = nor indeed the basis for your belief that that no other religious books were inspired by God – if indeed these are your beliefs. You state that “it is quite astounding, to me anyway, that independent writers and sources would get something that was as close as it was” which is just about as meaningless a statement as you can get. Furthermore, you state that you’ll get more out of an extra hour reading the bible than reading any other sacred text which immediately raises the question of how on earth you know what you’ll get out of a book that you haven’t yet read. Perhaps it would be helpful to the debate by setting out what you believe as regards the ‘divine’ authorship of the bible and other religious texts and your basis for it. In particular I’d be interested in (a) if, (b) when, and (c) how, you came to the conclusion that all the books of the bible were inspired by God, (d) whether you started to believe in God prior to coming to the conclusion that all the books in the bible were inspired by God or afterwards and (e) why you reject the claim that the books of the bible were merely written by men who believed in God but that God Himself played no part at all. Matt10
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 14, 2014 8:53:35 GMT -5
It has seemed to me reading the 4 gospels that there was an agenda and a message that they each wanted to get across. There was some 'copy/paste' stuff between them, but when they differ you can see pretty clearly that they had a story they wanted to tell, their way. Mark is supposed to be the earliest one and it is said he got his information from 'Q' that no one has actually found to my knowledge. I have to agree with Matt10 that it was inspired by the writers' belief in God and it's also clear that each one had just a bit of a different understanding. I don't see how contradictions etc. is proof that God inspired the writer. I don't think of them as trying to deceive or lie, just that they had an agenda and it was never meant to be the 'truth', but merely a way of getting across a belief the writer held.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 9:24:25 GMT -5
2 Timothy 3:16-17King James Version (KJV)
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
If we accept the above we have then to decide what is scripture! The statement covers "all" scripture, so we need to know what that is. Of course of we don't accept Paul's words to Tim then that's it as far as we are concerned.
Jesus promised to send us the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, who would teach and guide us in all things pertaining to God. We are told that the Holy Spirit will even guide us in things that we say. I do not believe the Holy Spirit gives us an exact script telling us what to say, but moves us in a way which expresses our beliefs and feelings. It also brings to our minds things to speak about. This will differ from person to person in what exactly is expressed, but the Spirit of the message will be the same.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Dec 14, 2014 9:34:37 GMT -5
There is a problem with the "inspired" part; Inspired is as the one who claims it. Even when it's "god's word" direct to one man the "inspired" part can change. Consider something basic like the 10 commandments, where it's said to be written down directly from god to man. Did the holy spirit change it's mind, or did Moses get a different "inspiration" each time? www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.pdfAh, this is a very good example, although it took me a bit to see where you were going with this. (I can be a bit dense sometimes.) Yes, if God literally dictated the words or the thoughts to the writer then you'd think He would take care that at least the i's were dotted and t's crossed. I have similar issues with the Creation story, and other descriptions and explanations within the Bible that reflect the cultural optics and limited scientific knowledge of the writer. If God was dictating the words, you'd think he would take more care to get it exactly right. However, if we take Scripture as "inspired" by God, that is, God motivated the writer in a commonsensical way then these small differences lend more credence to the story rather than less. It is quite astounding, to me anyway, that independent writers and sources would get something that was as close as it was. I feel the same way about inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts. There are notable inconsistencies in the accounts of Jesus after he died. That adds to the veracity of the accounts because the writers wrote the authentic truth as they understood or saw it without trying to varnish or harmonise the accounts. And the important stuff is the same in all four accounts. I understand you believe that the bible is NOT infallible, and NOT inerrant, and this evidence strengthens your believe that the bible is authentic. I see it differently. For example; If I compared a stack of dollar bills and found differences these differences would be a reason to suspect I might have a counterfeit. Inerrant - no errors Infallible - there can be no errors
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 14, 2014 9:35:29 GMT -5
2 Timothy 3:16-17King James Version (KJV) 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.If we accept the above we have then to decide what is scripture! The statement covers "all" scripture, so we need to know what that is. Of course of we don't accept Paul's words to Tim then that's it as far as we are concerned. Jesus promised to send us the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, who would teach and guide us in all things pertaining to God. We are told that the Holy Spirit will even guide us in things that we say. I do not believe the Holy Spirit gives us an exact script telling us what to say, but moves us in a way which expresses our beliefs and feelings. It also brings to our minds things to speak about. This will differ from person to person in what exactly is expressed, but the Spirit of the message will be the same. 'All Scripture'? There are many books of 'scriptures' from many different different religions. According to this, they are all inspired by God. Interesting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 9:59:26 GMT -5
Ah, this is a very good example, although it took me a bit to see where you were going with this. (I can be a bit dense sometimes.) Yes, if God literally dictated the words or the thoughts to the writer then you'd think He would take care that at least the i's were dotted and t's crossed. I have similar issues with the Creation story, and other descriptions and explanations within the Bible that reflect the cultural optics and limited scientific knowledge of the writer. If God was dictating the words, you'd think he would take more care to get it exactly right. However, if we take Scripture as "inspired" by God, that is, God motivated the writer in a commonsensical way then these small differences lend more credence to the story rather than less. It is quite astounding, to me anyway, that independent writers and sources would get something that was as close as it was. I feel the same way about inconsistencies in the Gospel accounts. There are notable inconsistencies in the accounts of Jesus after he died. That adds to the veracity of the accounts because the writers wrote the authentic truth as they understood or saw it without trying to varnish or harmonise the accounts. And the important stuff is the same in all four accounts. I understand you believe that the bible is NOT infallible, and NOT inerrant, and this evidence strengthens your believe that the bible is authentic. I see it differently. For example; If I compared a stack of dollar bills and found differences these differences would be a reason to suspect I might have a counterfeit. Inerrant - no errors Infallible - there can be no errors How many of the errors are basically "differences?" At any incident, different people see slightly different views or aspects, but together their testimonies combine to portray a truer picture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 10:00:15 GMT -5
2 Timothy 3:16-17King James Version (KJV) 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.If we accept the above we have then to decide what is scripture! The statement covers "all" scripture, so we need to know what that is. Of course of we don't accept Paul's words to Tim then that's it as far as we are concerned. Jesus promised to send us the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, who would teach and guide us in all things pertaining to God. We are told that the Holy Spirit will even guide us in things that we say. I do not believe the Holy Spirit gives us an exact script telling us what to say, but moves us in a way which expresses our beliefs and feelings. It also brings to our minds things to speak about. This will differ from person to person in what exactly is expressed, but the Spirit of the message will be the same. 'All Scripture'? There are many books of 'scriptures' from many different different religions. According to this, they are all inspired by God. Interesting. Yes the difficulty may be determining what is scripture and what is not.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Dec 14, 2014 10:25:19 GMT -5
I understand you believe that the bible is NOT infallible, and NOT inerrant, and this evidence strengthens your believe that the bible is authentic. I see it differently. For example; If I compared a stack of dollar bills and found differences these differences would be a reason to suspect I might have a counterfeit. Inerrant - no errors Infallible - there can be no errors How many of the errors are basically "differences?" At any incident, different people see slightly different views or aspects, but together their testimonies combine to portray a truer picture. Or a completely wrong picture. Differences can mislead just as easily as bring truth or clarity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 11:12:58 GMT -5
How many of the errors are basically "differences?" At any incident, different people see slightly different views or aspects, but together their testimonies combine to portray a truer picture. Or a completely wrong picture. Differences can mislead just as easily as bring truth or clarity. Differences need not oppose each other.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Dec 14, 2014 15:09:17 GMT -5
I understand you believe that the bible is NOT infallible, and NOT inerrant, and this evidence strengthens your believe that the bible is authentic.
I see it differently. For example; If I compared a stack of dollar bills and found differences these differences would be a reason to suspect I might have a counterfeit.
Inerrant - no errors Infallible - there can be no errors
How many of the errors are basically "differences?" At any incident, different people see slightly different views or aspects, but together their testimonies combine to portray a truer picture.
People have been going round and round on this for a long time. One group points to bible contradictions, and writes a book like; The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Others write books explaining why differences are not really contradictions like; The Big Book of Bible Difficulties: Clear and Concise Answers from Genesis to Revelation
Problems often arise when one takes a verse literally, and others understand the verse as metaphor. If you go the metaphor route, and not the “it says it – that makes it’s so” approach, you then are picking and choosing what makes sense to you, as of today. You most likely will explaining away or just ignore the contradictions and “bad verses”.
When two or more don’t agree on a verse often they split along the disagreement, and a new denomination if born; another only one true way. So if you pick an choose and see mostly metaphor, why not start with a clean sheet of paper, and define what is most good for mankind now, leave out; slavery, discrimination, male privilege ... ie Humanism.
Some count over 41,000 Christian denominations alone. The 2x2 position, I was told, was there is just one right way. So if there are 41,000 different christian denominations or ways, then 40,999 are wrong. To the 2x2 credit if all the 2 billion Christians alive today are saved, it would be hard to explain the mainstream view that is a "few".
If the book was written before word processors, by humans, like any other book, you would expect to see what we have in the bible. But if the bible has a super natural Holy Spirit authorship, then you would expect a god like work: a perfect work of a god; without errors and without contradiction.
Some verses are clearly not true. Take for example the first chapter of the first book of the bible. If I told you if you eat this banana - it will kill you, and you ate the banana and - it did not kill you. Wouldn’t the banana eater think he was lied to? If you can get past chapter one - book one, you will accept lots without good reason. Or in the NT; about the second coming; come quickly, those alive will see it…. That was 2,000 years ago and in no way can that be considered “quickly” or those alive who heard it will see it. I could go on but like I said there are many books on both sides.www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Annotated-Bible-Steve-Wells-ebook/dp/B00I76ROXK/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418584016&sr=1-7&keywords=bible+contradictionswww.amazon.com/Big-Book-Bible-Difficulties-Revelation/dp/0801071585/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418584016&sr=1-1&keywords=bible+contradictions&pebp=1418584110117americanhumanist.org/Humanism/What_is_Humanismen.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominationswww.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 17:10:33 GMT -5
How many of the errors are basically "differences?" At any incident, different people see slightly different views or aspects, but together their testimonies combine to portray a truer picture.
People have been going round and round on this for a long time. One group points to bible contradictions, and writes a book like; The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Others write books explaining why differences are not really contradictions like; The Big Book of Bible Difficulties: Clear and Concise Answers from Genesis to Revelation
Problems often arise when one takes a verse literally, and others understand the verse as metaphor. If you go the metaphor route, and not the “it says it – that makes it’s so” approach, you then are picking and choosing what makes sense to you, as of today. You most likely will explaining away or just ignore the contradictions and “bad verses”.
When two or more don’t agree on a verse often they split along the disagreement, and a new denomination if born; another only one true way. So if you pick an choose and see mostly metaphor, why not start with a clean sheet of paper, and define what is most good for mankind now, leave out; slavery, discrimination, male privilege ... ie Humanism.
Some count over 41,000 Christian denominations alone. The 2x2 position, I was told, was there is just one right way. So if there are 41,000 different christian denominations or ways, then 40,999 are wrong. To the 2x2 credit if all the 2 billion Christians alive today are saved, it would be hard to explain the mainstream view that is a "few".
If the book was written before word processors, by humans, like any other book, you would expect to see what we have in the bible. But if the bible has a super natural Holy Spirit authorship, then you would expect a god like work: a perfect work of a god; without errors and without contradiction.
Some verses are clearly not true. Take for example the first chapter of the first book of the bible. If I told you if you eat this banana - it will kill you, and you ate the banana and - it did not kill you. Wouldn’t the banana eater think he was lied to? If you can get past chapter one - book one, you will accept lots without good reason. Or in the NT; about the second coming; come quickly, those alive will see it…. That was 2,000 years ago and in no way can that be considered “quickly” or those alive who heard it will see it. I could go on but like I said there are many books on both sides.www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Annotated-Bible-Steve-Wells-ebook/dp/B00I76ROXK/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418584016&sr=1-7&keywords=bible+contradictionswww.amazon.com/Big-Book-Bible-Difficulties-Revelation/dp/0801071585/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418584016&sr=1-1&keywords=bible+contradictions&pebp=1418584110117americanhumanist.org/Humanism/What_is_Humanismen.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominationswww.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/You misunderstood me. I was talking about the eyewitness testimonies of those recorded in the NT.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Dec 14, 2014 17:15:55 GMT -5
People have been going round and round on this for a long time. One group points to bible contradictions, and writes a book like; The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. Others write books explaining why differences are not really contradictions like; The Big Book of Bible Difficulties: Clear and Concise Answers from Genesis to Revelation
Problems often arise when one takes a verse literally, and others understand the verse as metaphor. If you go the metaphor route, and not the “it says it – that makes it’s so” approach, you then are picking and choosing what makes sense to you, as of today. You most likely will explaining away or just ignore the contradictions and “bad verses”.
When two or more don’t agree on a verse often they split along the disagreement, and a new denomination if born; another only one true way. So if you pick an choose and see mostly metaphor, why not start with a clean sheet of paper, and define what is most good for mankind now, leave out; slavery, discrimination, male privilege ... ie Humanism.
Some count over 41,000 Christian denominations alone. The 2x2 position, I was told, was there is just one right way. So if there are 41,000 different christian denominations or ways, then 40,999 are wrong. To the 2x2 credit if all the 2 billion Christians alive today are saved, it would be hard to explain the mainstream view that is a "few".
If the book was written before word processors, by humans, like any other book, you would expect to see what we have in the bible. But if the bible has a super natural Holy Spirit authorship, then you would expect a god like work: a perfect work of a god; without errors and without contradiction.
Some verses are clearly not true. Take for example the first chapter of the first book of the bible. If I told you if you eat this banana - it will kill you, and you ate the banana and - it did not kill you. Wouldn’t the banana eater think he was lied to? If you can get past chapter one - book one, you will accept lots without good reason. Or in the NT; about the second coming; come quickly, those alive will see it…. That was 2,000 years ago and in no way can that be considered “quickly” or those alive who heard it will see it. I could go on but like I said there are many books on both sides.www.amazon.com/Skeptics-Annotated-Bible-Steve-Wells-ebook/dp/B00I76ROXK/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418584016&sr=1-7&keywords=bible+contradictionswww.amazon.com/Big-Book-Bible-Difficulties-Revelation/dp/0801071585/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418584016&sr=1-1&keywords=bible+contradictions&pebp=1418584110117americanhumanist.org/Humanism/What_is_Humanismen.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominationswww.pewforum.org/2011/12/19/global-christianity-exec/ You misunderstood me. I was talking about the eyewitness testimonies of those recorded in the NT. I thought none of the writers of the NT were eyewitness of Jesus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 17:18:31 GMT -5
You misunderstood me. I was talking about the eyewitness testimonies of those recorded in the NT. I thought none of the writers of the NT were eyewitness of Jesus. you mean matthew, mark, luke and john, peter and james?
|
|
|
Post by xna on Dec 14, 2014 17:29:41 GMT -5
I thought none of the writers of the NT were eyewitness of Jesus. you mean matthew, mark, luke and john, peter and james? Yes. See ehrmanblog.org/question-about-eyewitnesses-and-the-gospels/For those who had a vision, heard a story or had a special revelation we are back to the problem I mentioned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 17:52:49 GMT -5
most of that link is pure speculation....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2014 18:06:32 GMT -5
I thought none of the writers of the NT were eyewitness of Jesus. you mean matthew, mark, luke and john, peter and james? Thanks Wally. I should have made myself clearer. 2 PETER 1 16. For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Dec 14, 2014 18:13:17 GMT -5
|
|