Customer Discussions > Bible forum

Why the bible is the literal 'word of god'.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 135 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Oct 24, 2010 1:32:31 AM PDT
raindrops says:
What makes it the actual 'word of god' (besides it alluding to that in and of itself)?

How can a collection of chapters written by fallible men, collected into one book by fallible men, and translated by fallible men, be divine?

How do you discern what is literal and what is allegorical?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2010 2:22:49 AM PDT
Celsus says:
JC

>>What makes it the actual 'word of god' (besides it alluding to that in and of itself)?<<

The Bible does not claim to be the word of God; Christians make that claim on the Bible's behalf.

>>How can a collection of chapters written by fallible men, collected into one book by fallible men, and translated by fallible men, be divine?<<

Smoke and mirrors.

>>How do you discern what is literal and what is allegorical?<<

The apologists creed goes like this: If it is a passage that provides a pleasing literal message, take it literally. If it is a passage not to your liking, it should be viewed as figurative, thereby allowing you to assign to it whatever meaning you like. By this simple formula, the Bible can be made to say whatever you want it to say.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2010 2:46:35 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 24, 2010 2:55:33 AM PDT
raindrops says:
["The Bible does not claim to be the word of God; Christians make that claim on the Bible's behalf. "]

Hmm. I don't think so: 2 Peter 1:20-21 and 2 Tim. 3:16

["Smoke and mirrors. "]

Meaning?

["By this simple formula, the Bible can be made to say whatever you want it to say."]

Perhaps.

Celsus? Saw the ruins of the library of Celsus once. Cool place.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2010 12:16:48 PM PDT
Celsus says:
JC

>>Hmm. I don't think so: 2 Peter 1:20-21 and 2 Tim. 3:16<<

The above two passages do little to support the claim that the Bible is divine. Firstly, both passages are from books that are widely considered to be forgeries that arose in the mid to late second century, so whatever they might say carries little weight. Secondly, both passages only refer to Old Testament 'scripture', since the New Testament had not yet been assembled. Thirdly, 2 Peter is only referring to prophecy, not scripture in general, and 2 Tim says that scripture is 'inspired by God' which is not the same as saying it is divine. So if this is all Christians have to support the Bible being a work of God, they really don't have a case.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2010 3:28:30 PM PDT
raindrops says:
And Eph 6:17
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.

Heb 4:12
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

John 20:31
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Anyway, the argument is not about supporting the claim. The bible does allude to itself being the word of god and is accepted as such by most Christians, regardless of them having a case to support it or not.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2010 6:00:38 PM PDT
Celsus says:
JZee

>>Anyway, the argument is not about supporting the claim. The bible does allude to itself being the word of god and is accepted as such by most Christians, regardless of them having a case to support it or not.<<

The question from the OP still remains unanswered:
"How can a collection of chapters written by fallible men, collected into one book by fallible men, and translated by fallible men, be divine?"

I suggest it cannot. Attempts to establish its divinity require lots of smoke and mirrors in attempts to surmount the numerous errors, contradictions and absurdities contained in the Bible.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2010 6:25:27 PM PDT
ColdShot says:
if you don't understand it and can't feel it then

you'll need a sincere desire to understand AND a good pastor, who are very hard to find, to help light the path kinda like training wheels

Posted on Oct 24, 2010 7:23:00 PM PDT
It is quite obvious to any one who cares to take the time to study the bible from a perspective other than total sycophancy that this collection of writings is nothing more than propaganda used to justify power and control.

Anyone who believes that this collection of stories is the infallible word of god either has vested interest in believing so, or is delusional.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2010 9:15:35 PM PDT
JZee:

The "word of God" is not necessarily the Bible. God speaks to people in many different ways, all of which, the Bible included, are very open to misinterpretation of God.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2010 9:33:34 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 24, 2010 9:35:58 PM PDT
sharp9 says:
My recommendation for answers to these questions is to start with the book, MISQUOTING JESUS by Professor Bart Ehrman who started out as a literalist via Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, and finally after learning Greek and receiving his MDIV and PHD at Princeton Theological Seminary, painstakingly studied the New Testament from the perspective of textual criticism, which is concerned with the identification and removal of transcription errors from the texts of manuscripts, and the attempt to restore the manuscript as close as possible to the original. Additionally, he identifies other means by which the original manuscript might have been corrupted (e.g. intentional changes, mistranslations etc.). The point is, he shows us the impossibility of us having any "original manuscript" or "literal word of God". He doesn't exhort us as to what we "should" believe, but rather that the Bible was written by men, and not divine, and we should not be swayed by those who would selectively interpret it to serve their own purposes and agendas.

As to the question of literal vs. allegorical, check out the Jeffersonian Bible, in which this Founding Father excised portions of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects and and misinterpretations added by the Four Evangelists in an effort to extact the doctrine of Jesus.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2010 10:21:58 PM PDT
raindrops says:
["I suggest it cannot. Attempts to establish its divinity require lots of smoke and mirrors in attempts to surmount the numerous errors, contradictions and absurdities contained in the Bible. "]

Alright. Good stuff.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2010 10:23:56 PM PDT
raindrops says:
["if you don't understand it and can't feel it then

you'll need a sincere desire to understand AND a good pastor, who are very hard to find, to help light the path kinda like training wheels"]

So it's not self-evident? One cannot just pick it up, read it, and come to believe that it is the actual word of god? You need someone that you respect (or revere) to actually state that it is the word of god. Correct?

Shouldn't it be obvious to any and everyone that the 'word of god' is actually that, instead of depending on others for suggestive interpretations making it so?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2010 10:24:52 PM PDT
raindrops says:
["The "word of God" is not necessarily the Bible. God speaks to people in many different ways, all of which, the Bible included, are very open to misinterpretation of God. "]

So the 'word of god' would be a personal, subjectively understood phenomenom? Not one that could be heralded and paraded about as truth and fact for everyone else?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 24, 2010 10:29:48 PM PDT
raindrops says:
["The point is, he shows us the impossibility of us having any "original manuscript" or "literal word of God". He doesn't exhort us as to what we "should" believe, but rather that the Bible was written by men, and not divine, and we should not be swayed by those who would selectively interpret it to serve their own purposes and agendas."]
__________

Yeah, just from a light reading and without any indepth study I would think that would be fairly apparent. Yet I find so few Christians that hold a similar viewpoint. They argue so voraciously that every thing in the bible is directly from god and depicts a literal account of history.

It just doesn't stand to reason...

["As to the question of literal vs. allegorical, check out the Jeffersonian Bible, in which this Founding Father excised portions of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects and and misinterpretations added by the Four Evangelists in an effort to extact the doctrine of Jesus"]
__________

Yes, I'm familiar with this. Oddly enough there are still so many that go on and on about the U.S. being a Christian nation founded by Christians.... Jefferson had some interesting ideas, to be sure.

Posted on Oct 24, 2010 10:32:04 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 24, 2010 10:33:58 PM PDT
raindrops says:
Alright. So far we've got 3 'against' the bible being the actual word of god and spelling out some interesting points to validate it, one person 'for' it being the word of god but only saying that someone else needs to tell you that because it's not obviously evident, and one stating it can be one of the personal manifestations of god's word (correctly paraphrasing that, I hope).

I thought there'd be more 'for' discussion...

Posted on Oct 25, 2010 6:57:28 AM PDT
Sandor Balog says:
Hello All, I don't know if the Bible is the literal word of God, however, it seems to me that every word in it is true. Writers of the Bible may have used their own words to describe something but this had to be in full conformity with God's will. Of course, this is just an opinion.
Blessings,
SB,
Budapest - Hungary

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2010 8:29:42 AM PDT
raindrops says:
["I don't know if the Bible is the literal word of God, however, it seems to me that every word in it is true. "]

But why? Why does it seem to be true? Is there any external evidence that would lead you to that conclusion? Do you dismiss all the science that states that some of the stories held within are not true (creationism, global flood, etc.) ?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2010 8:36:41 AM PDT
I won't argue this except to note TWO FALLACIES...

1) If God is God then what does it matter that men are fallible ? Does weakness trump absolute power ?

2) The Bible says of God's word only this, which is independent of literal vs allegorical :
Isaiah 55:11
so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.

Jesus obvious spoke very parabolically but also had literal demands. So it is the sincerity of the seeker that matters, and that involves trying to find out but depending on God for help :
Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2010 10:17:00 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 25, 2010 10:18:42 AM PDT
Sandor Balog says:
Dear JZee, What should we mean by science. The Bible, as far as I could experience reading it, has its own science. No scientist has ever told that the number of stars is endless. Psalms 147:4 explicitly states: "He (God) telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names." I can accept this statement (nobody has ever proved the contrary), so I think that although the Universe can be endless (I don't know if it is) but the number of stars (obviously inclusive of planets) is not. There are many things in the Bible which can be proved and also many for which there is no explanation yet. Science and Bible are not against one another. In fact, science is supposed to give explanations for biblical events. I don't believe in creation in 6 literal day, nor do I believe that mankind has only a 6,000-year history. Nor do I believe that my anchestors were apes. I believe in a 49,000-year creation (7 days of 7,000 years each - including "two creations" of mankind and the creation of sun, moon and stars, i. e. the whole Universe), which, in my view, is duly supported by the Bible. I know this sounds strange.
Blessings,
S.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2010 2:25:02 PM PDT
JZee:

"So the 'word of god' would be a personal, subjectively understood phenomenom? Not one that could be heralded and paraded about as truth and fact for everyone else?"

When Christians try to do that (herald and parade the Bible around as truth), are they ever really effective? I don't think they are. Maybe there's a reason for that.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2010 4:23:32 PM PDT
raindrops says:
["1) If God is God then what does it matter that men are fallible ? Does weakness trump absolute power"]
_________

We're not talking about god, are we, but his 'word'. So it does very much matter if the written manifestation of god is the creation of man.

["The Bible says of God's word only this"]
________

No, it says way more than that.

And I'm not seeing that fallacy...

Nor do I really see you answering the question.

Is it truly the 'word of god' or not?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2010 4:27:45 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 25, 2010 4:58:10 PM PDT
raindrops says:
["No scientist has ever told that the number of stars is endless."]
_____________

Because, they're not endless.... NASA scientists put the number in the ballpark of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

["There are many things in the Bible which can be proved and also many for which there is no explanation yet. Science and Bible are not against one another. In fact, science is supposed to give explanations for biblical events. I don't believe in creation in 6 literal day, nor do I believe that mankind has only a 6,000-year history. Nor do I believe that my anchestors were apes. "]
_____________

That's fine, but not believing in facts isn't going to make said facts disappear. If not apes, then where did men come from? Dust?

Science completely debunks creationism and a whole host of other myths in the bible. Global floods, the dissemination of language, human race, the Earth and celestial bodies; things the bible says about them have all been proven false.

["I believe in a 49,000-year creation (7 days of 7,000 years each - including "two creations" of mankind and the creation of sun, moon and stars, i. e. the whole Universe), which, in my view, is duly supported by the Bible. I know this sounds strange."]
______________

It does. But you must have a reason for believing it. Any external evidence to validate the above?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2010 4:28:16 PM PDT
raindrops says:
["When Christians try to do that (herald and parade the Bible around as truth), are they ever really effective? I don't think they are. Maybe there's a reason for that. "]

Nah, never effective.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 25, 2010 5:14:37 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 25, 2010 5:17:02 PM PDT
Sandor Balog says:
Dear JZee,

As regards what I told about my ancestors not being apes: my father was never told by my grand-father that my grand-grand-father was an ape, etc. Materialists tend to say that believers mystify the facts. In this case, it is materialists that push human lineage into a vague past. I think I have explanation for any "myths" contained in the Bible. Of course, my explanation is fully based on the Bible. For your reference, you may visit my website www.magyarbattila.hu for some info about an essay I wrote about Three Days and Three Nights, clicking on the US or GB flag. I wrote a similar essay, which is now being translated by one of my English friends, who also translated my book into English. That essay is about the creation of the Universe and humanity and flora and fauna. That new essay consists of 24 items. The item 23 is not ready yet. It is about a time gap of 13 to 14 thousand years, most probably including one or two civilizations (Atlantis and/or Mu). I think rather two. With ancient astronauts that left loads of traces on earth, drawings found in Egyptian pyramids, showing well-discernible submarine, helicopter, glider etc.
However, I can't provide any external evidence. That's true. The Bible explains itself until you can find anything that can't be explained by the Bible. Maybe you can find some logic in my readily available essay about Three Days and Three Nights.
Best,
Sandor

Posted on Oct 25, 2010 5:16:50 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Feb 23, 2011 8:12:28 AM PST]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Bible forum
Participants:  22
Total posts:  135
Initial post:  Oct 24, 2010
Latest post:  Mar 8, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions