What Is The Bible And What Does It Contain?

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Listening to many Christians witnessing in today's age is perhaps the most grueling experience I can think of. So often it seems that their entire witness is based on what they have read in a book. Just because you read about a crime in the paper, doesn't mean that you can go to court during the trial and be a witness. Sadly, that's what our religion has produced in recent years. A bunch of well-read people who haven't really witnessed a thing. Know Your Bible People!

 

 

I have to disagree with this personally. I think more Christians in fact should be reading their bibles more often. So many Christians claim to believe the bible is the inerrant word of God but few of them have ever read the entire bible the whole way through. Sure, they'll read the popular stories everyone's familiar with, but how many Christians have read the story of Jephthah sacrificing his virgin daughter to God or the stories where the Israelites were commanded to murder all the married men and women of their enemies and keep the virgins for themselves to do with as they please? Many Christians will read easy feel-good evangelizing books like The Purpose Driven Life or CS Lewis but few Christians ever go into a serious hardcore study of the history of the bible or their faith. Or if they do study any biblical scholarship, they only read books by fundamentalist Christians they already agree with like Lee Strobel. Go up and ask your average fundamentalist Christian walking down the street and ask them if they know what the Q gospel is or if they know who Origen was and I doubt few of them would be able to tell you. Few fundamentalist Christians or people in general ever step out of their comfort zones and study diverse views of the bible on their own and few ever read the entire bible.

[Mike]

I can definitely see your point Neon.

 

When I was younger, I read the Pentateuch and the first few historical books straight through and very closely. I saw a lot in there that deeply troubled me, and remember marking up my margins trying to find hidden lessons or archetypes to ease the apparent brutality of what I was reading.

 

There are a couple of things that come to mind that turned me off. Besides, of course, the obvious stories of genocide and killing that most Christians seem to be embarrassed and troubled about. Now the Jewish study bible advises us not to take the language too literally about "every last living thing" being destroyed in this city or that. The language is to some degree propaganda. Perhaps they are correct, I don't know. But it is obvious that the war stories are pungent no matter what one tries to do with them.

 

I remember reading the story about Gideon and his army, when a city they were passing by refused them water. Later Gideon came back to the town and tortured its elders with thorns and briers - a rather barbaric act of wanton revenge, and fully endorsed by the author of the text. Another one that stuck in my mind was how David, on his deathbed, told Solomon to have a man executed who insulted him years earlier - another example of revenge and typical political rivalry, from the man after God's own heart. Indeed, if more people actually read the bible, I'm sure their beliefs about it would be greatly challenged. To me that is a good thing. The bible, as a religious text, seems meant to be struggled with. The bible can often be distasteful, dry and boring, unedifying, etc., and you can add horrifying when read from the perspective that God himself is endorsing every word.

 

I remember watching a video on youtube with Bart Ehrman talking to an audience. He said he'll often ask his class at the beginning of a semester, How many of you believe that the Bible is the Word of God?, and most of the hands will go up. Then he'll ask, How many of have read the entire Bible? Very few hands indeed!. Ehrman then says, "Now, I'm not telling you the Bible is God's word, you're telling the Bible is God's word. Now if God wrote a book...wouldn't you want to see what he had to say?"

 

Peace to you,

Mike

[Hornet]

Hi Hornet,

 

From the assumption of an 'all or nothing' approach to a religious text (or a religion generally), I would agree with you. Many people in the world approach their religion in just this way. But supposing that in neither book do we have to accept that 'all the teachings' are accurate, and that in neither book must we look for an absolute and exclusive claim to truth, there is a middle way to be traversed that admits the incomplete nature of our systems and concepts. This approach is, of course, incompatible with absolutist claims to religious truth, but it works for many others who don't find that approach appealing.

 

I'm not familiar with the Qur'an, but within my experience of the Bible, I'm not at all convinced that there is one, monolithic message or theory of reality articulated in the Bible. I'm also not convinced that the Bible in any clear or systematic way teaches that Jesus is God or endorses the protestant 'faith alone' theology which creates a dichotomy between faith and works.

 

I'm also very much disenfranchised with the enterprise of systematic theology on the whole, which seeks to exclude all untruth by neatly constructing a scaffolding for all 'true' reality. The very act of systematizing truth limits and excludes truth.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

 

If there is no God-inspired writing, then a person does not have to take an 'all or nothing' approach to a religious text. If the Bible actually originates from God, then we would expect it to contain no errors because God does not err. We would expect it to contain only the truth because God doesn't propagate falsehood.

[minsocal]

Hey Billmc,

 

Thanks. You keep me reading and listening.

-

I believe the Bible contains the written truths of God, and whether by history or parable, God is communicating to us those truths; exposed to us in such a way that we can understand them, and to tell others of.

We may have to sort out our prejudices to see these truths but they have been delivered to us clearly.

 

Universal truths cover a lot of ground. That's why we call them universals. Science continuously tries to boil as much as they can down to as few universal truths as possible in order to make sense of all the particular details it has to consider. Without universals, finding truth in the midst of the confusion of all the bits that exists would be nearly impossible.

 

Such things as gravity, and magnetism, may not be completely understood, but what we do know about them has proven reliable, and therefore are considered two of the scientific universals that provide enough truthful knowledge to be able to work out other problems where thay are relevant; i.e.; space travel, and electricity.

 

Spiritual universals behave the same way. The universal truths cover a myriad of applications. The Bible authors tell us how they applied them, but are not insistent about anything but the universals they are trying to communicate to us. There's no doubt many of you recognize this, i.e.; Love your neighbor, don't covet.

 

Jesus did say the Spirit will lead us to the truth. Where is it we find that He said this? In the Bible, of course. Does this contradict Jesus, of course not.

 

I could continue about the Law of Moses, and servants being obedient (think here of employees, or borrowers), or say Jesus came for individual justice not for the collective. Why, you ask?

You won't find Jesus, or His apostles seeking to overthrow any existing social order, (much to the dismay of the Jews, and should I dare say- progressives) dealing only with the indivduals responsibility to behave. This would take care of all the problems, would that everyone be so obedient.

Slavery under those conditions would be considerably less onerous, don't you think. If it remained in existence at all.

Jesus went to the root of the problem, the responsibility we have over our personal choices. How we should behave in any situation, as He would have.

 

The pecking order is a never ending stream of masters and slaves. Each one having a turn in each of us. Everything that exists has similar order. Anything that has no such order will only be chaotic. Not everyone can be the chief at the same time.

 

We may not apply Biblical universal truths the same as 1st century cultures would, but that doesn't mean the truths they applied won't cover us in the application we need to make today in our varied societies. We were still human beings at last glance.

 

I'm not certain about your closing suspicions. Perhaps it is that I suspect you may be less "progressive" than you think.

 

I hope it will suffice to say, I find no conflict between Jesus Christ and the Bible.

 

God's grace to you,

Davidk

 

1. Am I to assume then that God was unable to communicate with humans until such time as they developed language?

 

2. Propositions can be represented by symbols, language is a collection of symbols. Perhaps I could draw you a symbol picture? It might be "worth a tthousand words."

 

3. On the other hand, if I do as the Bible suggests and feed the poor. Perhaps then "actions speak louder than words?"

 

4. The assumption of universals in any domain reguires a list of what they are. If nature has universals, what then are the universals of human nature?

[Mike]

If there is no God-inspired writing, then a person does not have to take an 'all or nothing' approach to a religious text. If the Bible actually originates from God, then we would expect it to contain no errors because God does not err. We would expect it to contain only the truth because God doesn't propagate falsehood.

 

Hi Hornet,

 

From the assumption that God literally wrote the Bible, I think that would be a valid conclusion. But this is not necessarily the way one must approach Scripture. I am a theological liberal; I do not pretend to be otherwise: but there are many traditional Christians who don't see the bible as infallible. They would argue that God's spirit and authority was invested in the development and canonization of scripture, but not that the bible is without any error. Many traditional Christians would indeed find meaning and instruction even in the bible's inconsistencies and 'human side'.

 

One might think that that's being arbitrary; one might then question where the authority is, and I think many traditional Christians would find the authority in God as he is perceived to be working in the Church and within the Christian tradition on the whole, both historically and presently. They don't look exclusively to a book. (On a side note: the bible itself makes no claim to the status ascribed to it by many Christians as the sole authority, the only revelation, the only rule of faith and practice.)

 

Besides, it all boils down to one's own authority anyway - one's own beliefs. When it comes right down to it, you are deciding that the Bible is God's word. And when it comes right down to it, other Christians are deciding that God-in-Christ-in-the-Church-in-Scripture is the authority. There is some level of arbitrariness in anything we do, because we are human.

 

And my view of religious scripture would be that it is the communication of certain individuals' and certain communities' experiences of and beliefs about the divine. Experience and ideas are things that evolve and change with context.

 

'Inspiration' can take many forms. At least as an English word, it does not connote simply being dictated something word for word. Where's the inspiration in that?

 

Peace to you,

Mike

[Neon Genesis]

If there is no God-inspired writing, then a person does not have to take an 'all or nothing' approach to a religious text. If the Bible actually originates from God, then we would expect it to contain no errors because God does not err. We would expect it to contain only the truth because God doesn't propagate falsehood.

But if humans are also involved in the creation of the bible, wouldn't we expect some errors to make its way in the scriptures or did God temporarily take away the author's free will to sin when writing the bible?

[Hornet]

But if humans are also involved in the creation of the bible, wouldn't we expect some errors to make its way in the scriptures or did God temporarily take away the author's free will to sin when writing the bible?

 

The biblical writers received their information from God and combined it with their writing style. God ensured that they would not make any errors. If free will means to do as one pleases and the biblical writers wanted to write something that was error-free, then their free will to make mistakes was not taken away when they wrote the Bible.

[davidk]

Neon,

'He who has ears to hear, let him hear."- Jesus; Mat 11:15

--

 

Billmc,

"If God is love, then we don't experience God by reading about love, but by actually loving."- billmc

I agree. I also believe the Bible provides us with God's reason for why we should love.

 

On the freebeliever:

What we find in the Bible actually warns us about man's tendency to confuse the worship of God with anything else, and to guard against it, and the freebeliever (FB) seems to concur with this particular concept by reasoning in concert with what we find in the Bible. .

But is this FB lumping all Bible believers (BB) into this category of "Christian" pharisees? Since He uses the Bible as its own evidence against those who consider the Bible as the Word of God, is he saying the Bible is true in those areas, or not? He's not clear on this.

For example: FB referenced, from the Bible, the apostle John, who wrote, "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God". FB then referenced John saying "Jesus is the Word" in his effort to disqualify the BB claim. FB conveniently avoided fully discussing the former quote, which is critical to this discussion. Is he saying what is contained in the Bible is or is not true about Jesus, from before the beginning, being the Word being God?

If the Bible does contain the truth in this matter, that Jesus is God, and if we find written in the Bible what Jesus said and taught, and if, along with FB's own declaration, we find the entire Bible points toward Jesus (which would need God's direct influence to be capable of); then it would be quite reasonable to consider the Bible as God's personal message of hope to man- that the Word of God does contain the Word of God.

For anyone to say this deifies the Bible, is under a false interpretation.

--

Mike,

In your post, #20, you asked a lot of questions that I think can be summed up by: "If God wanted to say something clearly to mankind and had the ability to do it, he would."

My only comment to you here, is to say- He did.

And it's messy only because so many can't believe God should have done it 'that' way. They want God to behave and speak in the way they want Him to, under their authority, and when He doesn't, they cry "foul". Rebellion is alive and well.

-

May I add that in your response to Hornet, where you said many people approach their religion as being right. I believe this falls a little short of reality; for everyone approaches their religion as being right. Even if your religion believes other religions are just as right as your are, you stand there thinking your religion is right, while the others are wrong. Your criticism of other religions claiming to be the only right religion, is a little like "the pot calling the kettle black".

The Bible doesn't make any claim of any human infallability, only God's. You have no authority other than what God gives you. It's not the other way around.

--

Joseph,

I had responded to your question by saying, at your request, that you had made a wrong assumption in the premise of you question. If you wish to build your case on faulty assimptions, I'll be glad to consider them on that basis.

As far as the second part of your question is concerned, I have already answered on numerous occasions in the past.

--

 

Dean,

"Apply your heart to discipline, And your ears to words of knowledge."- Prov 23:12

 

Knowledge is directly tied to language. One even has to communicate to oneself to understand what it is one knows, and that communication is always in the form of a language.

I'm not saying what your professor did. Which I agree with you "is demonstrably false".

I can make no claim, nor would I make any such attempt, that to know anything requires an exhaustive knowledge of it. I can know truly enough about gravity to know I can fall down, without having to have an exhaustive knowledge of gravity.

--

 

Minsocal,

#'s 1 & 2- I don't see man as ever not having language. Anthropologists have long considered that language is part of what separates man from the rest of the known universe.

#3- You can't neglect 'why' we should feed the poor. The 'why' needs to be spoken before any action could have any meaning.

#4- God created everything else, including man and nature. Man is unique in nature, because only he was made in the image of God. Also, Man is finite, which separates him, and nature, from the infinite God.

 

With all due respect,

 

Davidk

[Neon Genesis]

If the bible is divinely inspired, why didn't it reveal something revolutionary like the cure for AIDs, the cure for cancer, the cure for the common cold? Or why couldn't have God written in the bible that the Earth revolves around the sun rather than the other way around? Not only would this cure a great amount of sickness and suffering and it would have prevented Galileo from being persecuted by the church, it would have proven the bible was undeniably the word of God by giving away revolutionary scientific knowledge that was impossible to have been achieved by people's limited understanding of the universe at the time?

[Mike]

Hi David,

 

Mike,

In your post, #20, you asked a lot of questions that I think can be summed up by: "If God wanted to say something clearly to mankind and had the ability to do it, he would."

My only comment to you here, is to say- He did.

 

I would, then, respond by pointing out that it looks an awful like you're the one saying this. God seems conspicuously absent from the conversation.

 

But if we're just going to make bald assertions, all I have to say is - He didn't.

 

And it's messy only because so many can't believe God should have done it 'that' way. They want God to behave and speak in the way they want Him to, under their authority, and when He doesn't, they cry "foul". Rebellion is alive and well.

 

My reasons, existing within and without my post, cannot be summed up by the word rebellion. You'll have to do better than 'moral failure' to explain my objections and my position.

 

By the way, what follows from your argument is that God can be as unreasonable, inefficient and morally reprehensible and negligent as he wants, and it's not our place to question. And I happen to think if such were the case, crying 'foul' would suit the situation just fine.

 

One other thing, you cannot with one breath say that God is logical, orderly, and intelligent, and then with another condemn people for applying their logic and intelligence to your religious claims.

 

May I add that in your response to Hornet, where you said many people approach their religion as being right. I believe this falls a little short of reality; for everyone approaches their religion as being right. Even if your religion believes other religions are just as right as your are, you stand there thinking your religion is right, while the others are wrong. Your criticism of other religions claiming to be the only right religion, is a little like "the pot calling the kettle black".

 

I didn't say "many people approach their religion as being right". I said an "all or nothing" approach to religion. Therefore none of this follows.

 

The Bible doesn't make any claim of any human infallability, only God's. You have no authority other than what God gives you. It's not the other way around.

 

Yet it is you who decides for himself what is the authority or not. You are basing all this on your own judgment and opinion. The way I see it, invoking heaven does not change the reality of that.

 

Until I see a treatment of my arguments which does them justice, I see no need to continue the discussion.

 

Peace to you,

Mike

[JosephM]

Davidk,

 

Joseph,

I had responded to your question by saying, at your request, that you had made a wrong assumption in the premise of you question. If you wish to build your case on faulty assimptions, I'll be glad to consider them on that basis.

As far as the second part of your question is concerned, I have already answered on numerous occasions in the past.

 

David,

 

We can't even agree whether you responded or not. It seems logical and obvious to me that you avoid the direct questions and are most talented in slipping around them such as you have done above. So there is no point my having a one way discussion with you. Above, You have already declared my case as built on faulty assumptions before i have had a chance to present it. I just can't get past your logic David nor dialog with that kind of behavior.

 

 

Mike,

In your post, #20, you asked a lot of questions that I think can be summed up by: "If God wanted to say something clearly to mankind and had the ability to do it, he would."

My only comment to you here, is to say- He did.

And it's messy only because so many can't believe God should have done it 'that' way. They want God to behave and speak in the way they want Him to, under their authority, and when He doesn't, they cry "foul". Rebellion is alive and well.

 

 

Your response to Mike is also similar. In essence you allude by using what you, but not he, considers God's Word that he is being rebellious. You have not really answered his questions and your behavior IMO is not typical of one looking for understanding or meaningful dialog. This is my last post of the discussion with you also and I would suggest you be careful to make your points to any others who wish to continue with you without remarks that could possibly be inflammatory in nature. What you say is what you davidk say, not what God says here so please be careful.

 

In your initial posts you indicated God was logical and it was logical that God would communicate with man and you obviously considered the Bible logical . No one disagreed that God wasn't logical but rather pointed there are other ways rather than the written letter. Now you point out in essence that we want God to behave and speak in the way we want him to because we do not see ALL the writings in the Bible as logical. You are correct that we do not see it logical that God ordered the atrocities including the killing of women and children and livestock along with other statements written within. We do not consider that as God's behavior nor logical. If you were logical you would not consider that we are rebellious because of our logic. But since you have already presumed the Bible as the Word of God, and are not open to the contrary, you have no other alternative but to assume everything we say in opposition to your premise (or the Bible as you understand it) is rebellion and not logical. You have placed yourself in a catch-22. How paradoxical!

 

Have a great day,

Joseph

 

edited .. Added (or the Bible as you understand it)

[minsocal]

Neon,

'He who has ears to hear, let him hear."- Jesus; Mat 11:15

--

 

--

 

Minsocal,

#'s 1 & 2- I don't see man as ever not having language. Anthropologists have long considered that language is part of what separates man from the rest of the known universe.

#3- You can't neglect 'why' we should feed the poor. The 'why' needs to be spoken before any action could have any meaning.

#4- God created everything else, including man and nature. Man is unique in nature, because only he was made in the image of God. Also, Man is finite, which separates him, and nature, from the infinite God.

 

With all due respect,

 

Davidk

 

Davidk,

 

Here is your anthropology. If you can enter into a dialogue at this level, I would be more than happy to accommodate you.

 

 

Dr. Terrence Deacon is professor of Biological Anthropology and Linguistics at University of California-Berkeley. His research combines human evolutionary biology and neuroscience, with the aim of investigating the evolution of human cognition. His work extends from laboratory-based cellular-molecular neurobiology to the study of semiotic processes underlying animal and human communication, especially language. He is the author of The Symbolic Species: The Co-evolution of Language and the Brain.

 

http://www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/deacon.htm

 

Regards,

 

minsocal

[AllInTheNameOfProgress]

Can we go back to these posts? The first set of assumptions is given by Joseph, and the second set of responses is davidk's answer to whether he agrees with Joseph's assumptions.

 

---

#1 The Bible is "the Word of God" (if agree please state which translated version and why.)

#2 The Bible is historically correct. (if yes, what logic leads you to believe that?)

#3 The Bible is scientifically correct. (if yes, what evidence has convinced you?)

#4 The Bible is geographically correct. ( If yes, on what evidence do you base your finding?)

#5 The Bible is archaeologically correct.

#6 The Bible is factually true without contradiction or statement error.

---

#1- Yes. Since I am not fluent in Hebrew or Greek languages, I read the English translations.

#2- Yes. Usually that question arises from the problems one seems to see with Genesis. I have no problem with the historicity of Genesis. If your question does not involve Genesis, then where do you find problems with the Bible's "historical" accounts?

#3- Yes. It's not clear where it is you see that science and the Bible conflict.

#'s 4 & 5- If you have heard ministers preach this, perhaps you could enlighten me on what they meant by geographically and archaeologically correct.

#6- Yes. This usually is addressed when parables and metaphors are used in attempt to discredit the Bible as being factually correct. They don't. Contradictions? I don't know of one

----

 

DavidK, Since the English translations vary, do you see them all as being equally correct at representing God's Word? As to the scientific correctness of the Bible, do you believe there is water above the "sky" (Genesis 1:6)? As to the contradictions, if you read through Genesis 1:1-2:3 the order of creation is different in the second creation story 2:4-2:25. Was man (male and female) created the 6th day after the plants and trees on day 3, or was man created when no plant of the field had yet sprung up? Contradictions are not confined to Genesis or the Old Testament. When Mary went to the empty tomb when Jesus had been resurrected was there one angel, as in Matthew 28:2-3? Was another Mary Salome with the Marys Mark 16:1)or was it Mary Magdalene and two disciples at the tomb (John 20)? Was it an angel, or a seated young man (Mark 16:5? Or were there two men standing (Luke 24:4)?

 

Are some of the commands in the Bible confined to the culture of their time (covering heads in prayer, not wearing buttons, making suspected adultresses drink poison to see if they are guilty)? If so, how do you decide which are relevant today and which ones have expired?

 

If you are wondering how I deal with the above information and still love the Bible, I have been through these questions, struggling, and believe that while the Bible is not "inerrant" nor the only "Word of God" it is a beautiful attempt by man to chronicle a culture's human relationship with God as understood by the men who were inspired by God to write it down. I find that even though it is not "perfect", I read within the Bible deep truths that call me to be more loving than I am and a Way to live life "abundantly". It's okay for us to agree to disagree :-)

[Hornet]

If the bible is divinely inspired, why didn't it reveal something revolutionary like the cure for AIDs, the cure for cancer, the cure for the common cold? Or why couldn't have God written in the bible that the Earth revolves around the sun rather than the other way around? Not only would this cure a great amount of sickness and suffering and it would have prevented Galileo from being persecuted by the church, it would have proven the bible was undeniably the word of God by giving away revolutionary scientific knowledge that was impossible to have been achieved by people's limited understanding of the universe at the time?

 

God intended the Bible to be a book about God, salvation, and how to live the Christian life. It wasn't intended to give all of the scientific and medical information that one could possibly have. God wanted us to find out for ourselves the things that you mentioned.

 

Fulfilled prophecy is strong evidence that the Bible is inspired by God, because when you look at the mathematical odds of prophecy being fulfilled, you see a guiding hand behind the Bible. If just one prophecy turned out to be false, then we would know that the God of the Bible is not the true God, because God would not be wrong about predicting the future.

 

Many of the prophecies in the Bible were written hundreds of years in advance.

[JosephM]

To Hornet,

 

Perhaps YOU could explain this reported failed prophecy whereby one need go no further than the Bible to testify against itself as containing failed prophecy...

 

In Isaiah 7:1-7 God tells the king of Judah that he shall not be harmed by his enemies.

 

And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it. And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind. Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field; And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah. Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying, Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal: Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.

^[7]

Yet it did come to pass according to 2 Chronicles 28:5. His enemies did harm him.

 

Wherefore the LORD his God delivered him into the hand of the king of Syria; and they smote him, and carried away a great multitude of them captives, and brought them to Damascus. And he was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel, who smote him with a great slaughter. For Pekah the son of Remaliah slew in Judah an hundred and twenty thousand in one day, which were all valiant men; because they had forsaken the LORD God of their fathers.

 

Just some food for thought concerning your last post,

Joseph

[minsocal]

How do we explain accurate and inaccurate prophecies? The answer is found in the intricate workings of our own cognitive capacities. Throughout life we accumulate a vast amount of information about the world. Davidk is in error when he assumes that human cognition is necessarily dependent upon verbal propositions, it is not. Much of our knowledge about the world is gained through observation of how things work in the real world. We are now just beginning to understand how it all works, but it is clear that infants, prior to the acgusition of language, are already forming concepts about the world, including morality itself. Furthermore, science is now uncovering hard evidence that certain basic human intuitions are literally "built into" the very structure of our brains. However, it is also true that some of these innate intuitions end up being false.

 

From the viewpoint of cognitive science a prophet would be, as Jung would define it, a person with a strong tendency to correlate innate intuition(s) with possible future events in the real world. In other words, they are tapping a basic cognitive capacity that, for reasons of efficiency, can be called a "probabilty engine". This accounts for their degree of success (and failure) in predicting future outcomes. If we discover that it is highly probable that a large rock is about to fall on our heads, we are inclined to move out of the field of danger rather than wait for the rock to fall.

[Neon Genesis]

God intended the Bible to be a book about God, salvation, and how to live the Christian life. It wasn't intended to give all of the scientific and medical information that one could possibly have. God wanted us to find out for ourselves the things that you mentioned.

Since the bible wasn't intended to convey scientific and medical truths to the world, why do you then presume that everything in the bible is historically and scientifically accurate and that there are no errors in it?

 

Fulfilled prophecy is strong evidence that the Bible is inspired by God, because when you look at the mathematical odds of prophecy being fulfilled, you see a guiding hand behind the Bible. If just one prophecy turned out to be false, then we would know that the God of the Bible is not the true God, because God would not be wrong about predicting the future.

 

Many of the prophecies in the Bible were written hundreds of years in advance.

Please explain where in the bible this prophecy in Matthew chapter 2 was made:

But when he heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And after being warned in a dream, he went away to the district of Galilee. 23There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He will be called a Nazorean.’

[minsocal]

I will suggest here, as best I am able, that it is something of a mistake to relate prophecy to predicting specific events in time and space. Instead, I believe the emphasis belongs more to states of affairs in the world. Consider Isaiah:

 

"Isaiah 3:15 NRS

What do you mean by crushing my people, by grinding the face of the poor? says the Lord God of hosts."

 

minsocal

[davidk]

Joseph,

 

"If you believe that God requires and would not leave us without a reference book to communicate his words then what makes you logically conclude that this reference book is accurate to the exclusion of all others of any other religion.(Also, please correct me if i have made a wrong assumption in my statement of this question.)"- Joseph

"You have already declared my case as built on faulty assumptions before i have had a chance to present it."- Joseph

Don't be absurd. I have not pre-judgement your case. The premise in your question to me made a wrong assumption- that I believe God requires a reference book to communicate to man or that God has left man.

However, I will answer on what I believe could've been your intent. (Also, please correct me if i have made a wrong assumption in my statement... .) If the God gave us His verbal propositional revelation, then it would be true and accurate to the exclusion of all other belief systems. It could not be otherwise

Speaking of wrong assumptions, you have made another: that I have even intimated "that we are rebellious because of our logic"

I am, and never otherwise, open to consider any contrarian argument. You seem to have yours already built.

As far as Mike's questions are concerned, I responded to what Mike said were his conclusions, rather than pick them apart one at a time.

 

God's grace to you,

David

[davidk]

Dear Mike,

 

"He didn't" ? It's not entirely clear to me what it is you mean by this. Does this mean God didn't want to say something to mankind, or that He wouldn't even if He did want, or that He didn't because He couldn't?

 

Rebellion toward God is moral failure. Even though I cannot see that anyone has perfect moral behavior, I made no such personal accusation toward you. As far as your your feeling insulted in this case, that is purely under your control, not mine.

I had merely been defining what is rebellion toward God: man's effort toward autonomy.

 

That effort is the source of every human problem. Thank goodness for God's gifts of forgiveness and grace through the sufficient work of Jesus Christ- who was with God, and was God, as found in Billmc's "freebeliever's" references, noting the clarity of the Biblical claims in this area.

--

 

The way I understood your 'all or nothing' religion was that many people approach their religion as being all true. My comment was to say that if anyone thought it wasn't all true, I doubt it would be their religion. I do not see anyone choosing a religion or a religious text to believe in, that they would not consider completely true.

 

I'm not aware of any effort on my part, whereby I have condemned anyone for applying a reasoned and logical argument in their understanding of what is.

Since you and I seem to believe that true answers exist, we therefore have some hope that those answers can be found out by reason and logic. This doesn't reasonably mean we will always agree, but I can find nothing to condemn in anyone in their search to understand what is there.

 

I have no doubts there is resistance in having any agreements with me, but that doesn't mean I'm purposefully not doing your posts justice. If it did, then it would be just as reasonable to argue that you are doing no justice to mine. I don't have any intention of being unreasonably disagreeable with anyone, and misunderstandings will undoubtedly occur on occasion.

 

I have not said God sat down at His desk and penned the Bible by His own hand. I don't know of any "fundamental or traditional" Bible believing Christian who does. God inspired and thus infallible beyond human capacity, yes.

Apologetics is a reasoned argument, and the need is the result of man's sin.

If any of this does not do your posts "justice", I cannot keep you here. I can only regret we could not come to a common undestanding.

 

Sincerely,

Davidk

[davidk]

Q. Would you agree language is the single most distinguishing attribute of human beings today?

A. "I do think that the development of language is the single most distinguishing attribute."- Dr. Terrence Deacon, professor of Biological Anthropology and Linguistics at University of California-Berkeley

[minsocal]

Q. Would you agree language is the single most distinguishing attribute of human beings today?

A. "I do think that the development of language is the single most distinguishing attribute."- Dr. Terrence Deacon, professor of Biological Anthropology and Linguistics at University of California-Berkeley

 

It is the capacity to represent, of which language is only one example. Dr. John Searle (1992, 1995, 2002), (same University).

[Hornet]

To Hornet,

 

Perhaps YOU could explain this reported failed prophecy whereby one need go no further than the Bible to testify against itself as containing failed prophecy...

 

In Isaiah 7:1-7 God tells the king of Judah that he shall not be harmed by his enemies.

 

And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it. And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind. Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field; And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah. Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying, Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal: Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.

^[7]

Yet it did come to pass according to 2 Chronicles 28:5. His enemies did harm him.

 

Wherefore the LORD his God delivered him into the hand of the king of Syria; and they smote him, and carried away a great multitude of them captives, and brought them to Damascus. And he was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel, who smote him with a great slaughter. For Pekah the son of Remaliah slew in Judah an hundred and twenty thousand in one day, which were all valiant men; because they had forsaken the LORD God of their fathers.

 

Just some food for thought concerning your last post,

Joseph

 

 

Hello Joseph,

 

The next two verses after Isaiah 7:7 resolves this alleged failed prophecy. Isaiah 7:8-9 says ,"For the head of Aram is Damascus and the head of Damacus is Rezin (now within another 65 years Ephraim will be shattered, so that it is no longer a people), and the head of Ephraim is Samaria and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah. If you will not believe, you surely shall not last." The book of Isaiah is teaching that as long as the king of Judah believes in God, he will not be harmed by his enemies. Whether or not he would be harmed by his enemies was conditioned on whether or not he would believe in God. According to 2 Chronicles 28:1-5, his enemies harmed him because he stopped believing in God and started to worship false gods.

 

Hornet

[Hornet]

Since the bible wasn't intended to convey scientific and medical truths to the world, why do you then presume that everything in the bible is historically and scientifically accurate and that there are no errors in it?

 

Please explain where in the bible this prophecy in Matthew chapter 2 was made:

 

The biblical writers received their information from God and wrote it down. God ensured that they would not make any mistakes. Moreover, God is truthful and He cannot be mistaken. God would not pass along false information.

 

The quote in Matthew 2 is not a direct quote of any Old Testament passage. Matthew could have alluded to Isaiah 11:1, which describes the Messiah as arising from the ignominious conditions into which David's house had fallen and has links to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 49-53. Moreover, a Nazarene is a title of dishonor and it alludes to those Old Testament passages in which the Messiah is despised.

[JosephM]

Hello Joseph,

 

The next two verses after Isaiah 7:7 resolves this alleged failed prophecy. Isaiah 7:8-9 says ,"For the head of Aram is Damascus and the head of Damacus is Rezin (now within another 65 years Ephraim will be shattered, so that it is no longer a people), and the head of Ephraim is Samaria and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah. If you will not believe, you surely shall not last." The book of Isaiah is teaching that as long as the king of Judah believes in God, he will not be harmed by his enemies. Whether or not he would be harmed by his enemies was conditioned on whether or not he would believe in God. According to 2 Chronicles 28:1-5, his enemies harmed him because he stopped believing in God and started to worship false gods.

 

Hornet

 

Hornet,

 

Thank you for the research and explanation. If i understand you correctly, you interpret the declaration of "Thus saith the Lord GOD, it will not stand, neither shall it come to pass" as a conditional prophecy because the next 2 versus make it conditional upon the faith of King Ahaz.

 

You may be correct. Interesting but it seems to me rather strange or illogical for an all knowing Almighty God to make such a declaration of prophecy that he knew in advance would not come to pass and make it conditional upon a condition that he knew would not be met. I cannot help but think or consider that perhaps it would have been better left unsaid as a prophecy or perhaps it was not God speaking?

 

Anyway, Just my thoughts on your response. Thanks again for your time and prompt response,

 

Joseph