How To Get To Heaven When You Die. Read The First Post. Then Q&A Discussion. Ask Questions Here! (1 Viewer)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Got Questions

Is the Bible truly God’s Word?​

Our answer to this question will not only determine how we view the Bible and its importance to our lives, but it will also have an eternal impact on us. If the Bible is truly God’s Word, then we should cherish it, study it, obey it, and fully trust it. If the Bible is truly the Word of God, then it is the final authority for all matters of faith, practice, and morality. If the Bible is the Word of God, then to dismiss it is to dismiss God Himself.

The fact that God gave us the Bible is an evidence of His love for us. God communicated to mankind what He is like and how we can have a right relationship with Him. These are things that we could not have known had God not divinely revealed them to us in the Bible. The Bible contains everything mankind needs to know about God in order to have a right relationship with Him.

How can we know that the Bible is the Word of God and not just a good book? What is unique about the Bible that sets it apart from all other books ever written? Is there any evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word? These types of questions must be seriously examined. There can be no doubt that the Bible does claim to be the Word of God. This is seen in Paul’s commendation to Timothy: “From infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:15–17).

There are both internal and external evidences that the Bible is truly God’s Word.

Internal Evidence that the Bible is God’s Word

Internal evidences are those things within the Bible that testify of its divine origin. One internal evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word is its unity. Even though it is really sixty-six individual books, written on three continents, in three different languages, over a period of approximately 1,500 years, by more than 40 authors who came from many walks of life, the Bible remains one unified book from beginning to end without contradiction. This unity is unique from all other books and is evidence of the divine origin of the words that God moved men to record.

Another internal evidence that indicates the Bible is truly God’s Word is prophecy. The Bible contains hundreds of detailed prophecies relating to the future of various nations, certain cities, and all mankind. Other prophecies concern the coming of the Messiah, the Savior of all who would believe in Him. Unlike the prophecies found in other religious books or those by men such as Nostradamus, biblical prophecies are extremely detailed. There are over three hundred prophecies concerning Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. Not only was His lineage foretold and where He would be born, but also how He would die and that He would rise again. There simply is no logical way to explain the fulfilled prophecies in the Bible other than citing divine origin. There is no other religious book with the amount of detailed predictive prophecy the Bible contains.

A third internal evidence of the divine origin of the Bible is its unique authority and power. While this evidence is more subjective than the first two, it is no less a powerful testimony that the Bible is God’s Word. The Bible’s authority is unlike that of any other book ever written. This power is seen in the way countless lives have been supernaturally transformed. Drug addicts have been cured by it, homosexuals set free by it, derelicts and deadbeats transformed by it, hardened criminals reformed by it, sinners rebuked by it, and hate turned to love by it. The Bible does possess a dynamic and transforming power that is only possible because it is truly God’s Word.

External Evidence that the Bible is God’s Word

There are also external evidences that indicate the Bible is truly the Word of God. One is the historicity of the Bible. Because the Bible details historical events, its accuracy is subject to verification like any other historical document. Through archaeological evidence and extra biblical writings, the historical accounts of the Bible proved time and again to be accurate and true. In fact, all the archaeological and manuscript evidence supporting the Bible makes it the best-documented book from the ancient world. That the Bible accurately records historically verifiable events helps substantiate its claim to be the very Word of God and supports trust concerning other matters the Bible addresses.

Another external evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word is the integrity of its human authors. In studying the lives of the authors of Scripture, we find them to be honest and sincere. The fact that they were willing to die often excruciating deaths for what they believed testifies that these men truly believed God had spoken to them. The men who wrote the New Testament and many hundreds of other believers (1 Corinthians 15:6) knew the truth of their message because they had spent time with Jesus Christ after He had risen from the dead. Seeing the risen Christ had a tremendous impact on them. They went from hiding in fear to being willing to die for the message God had revealed to them. Their lives and deaths testify to the fact that the Bible truly is God’s Word.

Another external evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word is the indestructibility of the Bible. The Bible has suffered more vicious attacks and attempts to destroy it than any other book in history. From early Roman Emperors like Diocletian, through communist dictators and on to modern-day atheists, the Bible has withstood a constant onslaught from detractors. Yet it endures and is still today the most widely published book in the world.

Throughout history, skeptics have regarded the Bible as mythological, but archaeology has confirmed it as historical. Opponents have attacked its teaching as primitive and outdated, but its moral and legal concepts have had a positive influence on societies throughout the world. It continues to be attacked by pseudo-science, psychology, and political movements, yet it remains just as true and relevant today as it was when it was first written. This should not surprise us. After all, Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Mark 13:31).

The Bible, unique among books, has transformed countless lives and swayed whole cultures. After looking at the evidence, one can say without a doubt that God has spoken and that, yes, the Bible is truly God’s Word.

While I don't think it takes much to pick apart the above, I don't think that is really necessarily the point. I am guessing that the above is powerful to two groups of people - those that were born into this belief system and those "wretched souls" that are "all in" with the "amazing grace". Maybe some "cafeteria Christians" find comfort moving into this belief mode, but I think it turns off many, many more. I also think it is a main driver of those born into this belief system out of Christianity altogether. When something in the bible meaningful to them fails, then the whole house of cards collapses. When I read Deuteronomy 22 I don't need to twist and turn in ways that a pretzel would fall apart to avoid concluding that God is immoral. When I see rockets blasting right through the firmament layer's waters I don't need to pretend to not be "picking and choosing" this as merely being poetic license. Etc. Etc. But those born into this have no place to go but "out the door". Seems to a pretty big club here in the FFA.

So for the most part I don't see how this helps, even if, especially if this is correct and I'm wrong. Maybe it helps weed out those faux Christians (like me) from the "select", but if the goal is to bring as many as possible "into the fold" it sure seems counterintuitive.

This belief system allows for some god-awful policy choices to be pursued under the "authority of God's word". And it can easily be used this way because support for just about any bad policy can be found somewhere or another as God's people struggled to find their way to be godly people. Documenting much of this along the way.

 

[Scoresman]

Hasn’t the Bible been altered and translated so many times that it’s not even close to what it was originally? I’d be suspect of this if I were a believer. If it really is the word of god why alter it and why have entire books been taken out?

 

[dgreen]

Got Questions

Is the Bible truly God’s Word?​

While I don't think it takes much to pick apart the above, I don't think that is really necessarily the point. I am guessing that the above is powerful to two groups of people - those that were born into this belief system and those "wretched souls" that are "all in" with the "amazing grace". Maybe some "cafeteria Christians" find comfort moving into this belief mode, but I think it turns off many, many more. I also think it is a main driver of those born into this belief system out of Christianity altogether. When something in the bible meaningful to them fails, then the whole house of cards collapses. When I read Deuteronomy 22 I don't need to twist and turn in ways that a pretzel would fall apart to avoid concluding that God is immoral. When I see rockets blasting right through the firmament layer's waters I don't need to pretend to not be "picking and choosing" this as merely being poetic license. Etc. Etc. But those born into this have no place to go but "out the door". Seems to a pretty big club here in the FFA.

So for the most part I don't see how this helps, even if, especially if this is correct and I'm wrong. Maybe it helps weed out those faux Christians (like me) from the "select", but if the goal is to bring as many as possible "into the fold" it sure seems counterintuitive.

This belief system allows for some god-awful policy choices to be pursued under the "authority of God's word". And it can easily be used this way because support for just about any bad policy can be found somewhere or another as God's people struggled to find their way to be godly people. Documenting much of this along the way.

I used to enjoy the threads here in the FFA back in the day when we'd debate the existence of God. That's no longer an interest of mine. I believe God exists, but I'm not trying to argue that with others. Similarly, I don't make efforts to prove the inspiration of Scripture. It's an assumption I hold, but it's not something I can adequately define right now and I don't try to prove it to others. I used to have a list of ways the Bible must behave in order for it to be the Word of God, but many of those have broken down for me. While I've had my biggest times of doubt the last couple years, the whole house of cards hasn't come down. This journey hasn't sent me away. I still hold to inspiration, but I find focusing on the human aspect of the text to be a great way to help me interpret it. Reading the Bible as human literature has been more helpful to me than my old approach to the Bible of picturing God himself literally speaking every word to me.

 

[dgreen]

Hasn’t the Bible been altered and translated so many times that it’s not even close to what it was originally? I’d be suspect of this if I were a believer. If it really is the word of god why alter it and why have entire books been taken out?

We don't have originals so it's impossible to say with certainty how close we are to the originals. However, my understanding is that most textual critics would disagree that we're "not even close".

Your second question is one I really like because it gets at what I just posted above and the difficulty, at least for me, to define what it even means for something to be the word of god. For most people, if something is going to be the word of god, then it must be free from altering or scribal mistakes, or other things like historical errors or contradictions. I think we each have our own assumptions of how a text would have to look if it "came from a god". To me, the Bible doesn't always look like the way we think it should. For some, that's a reason to reject it completely. For others, that's a reason to adjust assumptions. For many believers, they'll say to let the Bible be the Bible and read it on its own terms; don't impose our measures of inspiration on it if its not claiming to meet those measures.

 

[dkp993]

I believe God exists, but I'm not trying to argue that with others.

This mindset is basically where I’ve been for a long time. I don’t believe in God in the classic sense (up on high sitting in judgment, etc etc) and believe religion is our feeble monkey brain trying to make sense of life. But I don’t care to convince others of my beliefs. If whatever you (the metaphorical “you” not you specifically dgreen) believe makes you a better more fulfilled person, so be it. This thing call life is incredibly complex with countless challenges, it’s certainly not my place to tell someone how to do it the best that they can.

 

[Paddington]

Got Questions

Is the Bible truly God’s Word?​

While I don't think it takes much to pick apart the above, I don't think that is really necessarily the point. I am guessing that the above is powerful to two groups of people - those that were born into this belief system and those "wretched souls" that are "all in" with the "amazing grace". Maybe some "cafeteria Christians" find comfort moving into this belief mode, but I think it turns off many, many more. I also think it is a main driver of those born into this belief system out of Christianity altogether. When something in the bible meaningful to them fails, then the whole house of cards collapses. When I read Deuteronomy 22 I don't need to twist and turn in ways that a pretzel would fall apart to avoid concluding that God is immoral. When I see rockets blasting right through the firmament layer's waters I don't need to pretend to not be "picking and choosing" this as merely being poetic license. Etc. Etc. But those born into this have no place to go but "out the door". Seems to a pretty big club here in the FFA.

So for the most part I don't see how this helps, even if, especially if this is correct and I'm wrong. Maybe it helps weed out those faux Christians (like me) from the "select", but if the goal is to bring as many as possible "into the fold" it sure seems counterintuitive.

This belief system allows for some god-awful policy choices to be pursued under the "authority of God's word". And it can easily be used this way because support for just about any bad policy can be found somewhere or another as God's people struggled to find their way to be godly people. Documenting much of this along the way.

I used to enjoy the threads here in the FFA back in the day when we'd debate the existence of God. That's no longer an interest of mine. I believe God exists, but I'm not trying to argue that with others. Similarly, I don't make efforts to prove the inspiration of Scripture. It's an assumption I hold, but it's not something I can adequately define right now and I don't try to prove it to others. I used to have a list of ways the Bible must behave in order for it to be the Word of God, but many of those have broken down for me. While I've had my biggest times of doubt the last couple years, the whole house of cards hasn't come down. This journey hasn't sent me away. I still hold to inspiration, but I find focusing on the human aspect of the text to be a great way to help me interpret it. Reading the Bible as human literature has been more helpful to me than my old approach to the Bible of picturing God himself literally speaking every word to me.

The Bible was absolutely inspired by God. You have hundreds of prophecies written hundreds of years before Christ that or fulfilled in His life. Including when he would be born where he would be born, that he would die, how he would die, that he would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, and many more details 1 to 200 of them. It is impossible for that to happen without it being inspired by God. You also have to consider how it all fits together being written by 40 different man over 1500 years. That is impossible also. That it fits together as one book.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Hasn’t the Bible been altered and translated so many times that it’s not even close to what it was originally? I’d be suspect of this if I were a believer. If it really is the word of god why alter it and why have entire books been taken out?

I see this notion often, and frankly it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Has the Bible been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with?​

The books of the Old Testament were written from approximately 1400 BC to 400 BC. The books of the New Testament were written from approximately AD 40 to AD 90. So, anywhere between 3,400 and 1,900 years have passed since a book of the Bible was written. In this time, the original manuscripts have been lost. They very likely no longer exist. Since the time the books of the Bible were originally written, they have been copied again and again by scribes. Copies of copies of copies have been made. In view of this, can we still trust the Bible?

The Holy Scriptures are God-breathed and therefore inerrant (2 Timothy 3:16–17; John 17:17). Of course, inerrancy can only be applied to the original manuscripts, not to the copies of the manuscripts. As meticulous as the scribes were with the replication of the Scriptures, no one is perfect. Through the centuries, minor differences arose in the various copies of the Scriptures. The vast majority of these differences are simple spelling variants (akin to American neighbor versus British neighbour), inverted words (one manuscript says “Christ Jesus” while another says “Jesus Christ”), or an easily identified missing word. In short, over 99 percent of the biblical text is not questioned. Of the less than 1 percent of the text that is in question, no doctrinal teaching or command is jeopardized. In other words, the copies of the Bible we have today are pure. The Bible has not been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with.

Any unbiased document scholar will agree that the Bible has been remarkably well-preserved over the centuries. Copies of the Bible dating to the 14th century AD are nearly identical in content to copies from the 3rd century AD. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, scholars were shocked to see how similar they were to other ancient copies of the Old Testament, even though the Dead Sea Scrolls were hundreds of years older than anything previously discovered. Even many hardened skeptics and critics of the Bible admit that the Bible has been transmitted over the centuries far more accurately than any other ancient document.

There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible has been revised, edited, or tampered with in any systematic manner. The sheer volume of biblical manuscripts makes it simple to recognize any attempt to distort God’s Word. There is no major doctrine of the Bible that is put in doubt as a result of the inconsequential differences among the manuscripts.

Again, the question, can we trust the Bible? Absolutely! God has preserved His Word despite the unintentional failings and intentional attacks of human beings. We can have utmost confidence that the Bible we have today is the same Bible that was originally written. The Bible is God’s Word, and we can trust it (2 Timothy 3:16; Matthew 5:18).

 

[zoonation]

Got Questions

Is the Bible truly God’s Word?​

While I don't think it takes much to pick apart the above, I don't think that is really necessarily the point. I am guessing that the above is powerful to two groups of people - those that were born into this belief system and those "wretched souls" that are "all in" with the "amazing grace". Maybe some "cafeteria Christians" find comfort moving into this belief mode, but I think it turns off many, many more. I also think it is a main driver of those born into this belief system out of Christianity altogether. When something in the bible meaningful to them fails, then the whole house of cards collapses. When I read Deuteronomy 22 I don't need to twist and turn in ways that a pretzel would fall apart to avoid concluding that God is immoral. When I see rockets blasting right through the firmament layer's waters I don't need to pretend to not be "picking and choosing" this as merely being poetic license. Etc. Etc. But those born into this have no place to go but "out the door". Seems to a pretty big club here in the FFA.

So for the most part I don't see how this helps, even if, especially if this is correct and I'm wrong. Maybe it helps weed out those faux Christians (like me) from the "select", but if the goal is to bring as many as possible "into the fold" it sure seems counterintuitive.

This belief system allows for some god-awful policy choices to be pursued under the "authority of God's word". And it can easily be used this way because support for just about any bad policy can be found somewhere or another as God's people struggled to find their way to be godly people. Documenting much of this along the way.

I used to enjoy the threads here in the FFA back in the day when we'd debate the existence of God. That's no longer an interest of mine. I believe God exists, but I'm not trying to argue that with others. Similarly, I don't make efforts to prove the inspiration of Scripture. It's an assumption I hold, but it's not something I can adequately define right now and I don't try to prove it to others. I used to have a list of ways the Bible must behave in order for it to be the Word of God, but many of those have broken down for me. While I've had my biggest times of doubt the last couple years, the whole house of cards hasn't come down. This journey hasn't sent me away. I still hold to inspiration, but I find focusing on the human aspect of the text to be a great way to help me interpret it. Reading the Bible as human literature has been more helpful to me than my old approach to the Bible of picturing God himself literally speaking every word to me.

The Bible was absolutely inspired by God. You have hundreds of prophecies written hundreds of years before Christ that or fulfilled in His life. Including when he would be born where he would be born, that he would die, how he would die, that he would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, and many more details 1 to 200 of them. It is impossible for that to happen without it being inspired by God. You also have to consider how it all fits together being written by 40 different man over 1500 years. That is impossible also. That it fits together as one book.

it is all very convenient. almost like the (anonymous) author of matthew was trying to tell the story to fulfill the prophecies.

 

[TennesseeJed]

That it fits together as one book.

Well, its not really one book - at best its two books thrown together - and there really is not much continuity in terms of the description of God from one book to the other.

But, how it was thrown together, and why it feels like 1 book, is a man-made construct, and, I am a bit skeptical about the motives of the men who ultimately decided what was canon, and what was left on the editing room floor.

 

[BobbyLayne]

How We Know the Bible Has Not Been Changed​

Ancient Manuscript​

|​

Copy (changed)​

|​

Copy (changed)​

There is a theory in the world today that the Bible has been changed over the thousands of years since it was originally written to the point that we cannot know what was originally written.

This is a popular theory among the Muslim community, Catholics, and others. The basic idea is shown above. The changes either came because of mistakes by the copyists or on purpose so that it would say what they wanted it to say. It would make sense for the rulers of the Jews over thousands of years to make changes to their Bible so that it would say what they wanted for the people at the time.

There is good evidence, however, that this has not happened.

First, one must look at what the scribes (those who made the copies) were thinking about when they made their copies. To the Jewish mind, the Old Testament was the word of God. This meant that they were very careful when they copied it. We do not have knowledge of the system the scribes used prior to AD100, but at that time, the Talmudists had taken over the responsibility of copying the Old Testament. They had a set of rules which were quite strict. The most important rules include not copying even the smallest mark from memory. They always had to look at the scroll or codex from which they were copying before they wrote a letter. They also had to make sure that the scroll or codex they were copying from was “certified” as a good copy.1

In about AD500, the group of Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes took over the responsibility of copying the Old Testament.

They had even stricter rules in that they numbered the letters in each book and knew the middle letters of each book, so they could check the accuracy of their copying down to the number of letters that they copied.

These rules grew out of a deep respect for the Old Testament as the word of God, which was something the scribes shared from the beginning. This shows that they were very careful in making their copies.

Another strong evidence that the Old Testament has not been changed over time so that we do not know what was originally written is the comparison of the Masoretic Text with the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 and some of the scrolls have been dated to be as old as from 125BC. Before these were discovered, the oldest copy of the Old Testament we had was the Masoretic Text from AD916.

When comparing a copy of Isaiah from 125BC with the Isaiah in the Masoretic Text, they discovered something strange. Nothing of importance was different. The prophecies about Jesus were still there. There were a few insignificant differences in wording, but the content was the same.

How do we know that the New Testament has not been changed over time? First, you could talk about the respect that the monks and other copyists had for the New Testament as the word of God. But there is something much more scientific that we can look at. We have thousands of copies from the New Testament that are very old. This makes the chart of the copying process different from what we have above.

Ancient Manuscript​

|​

Copy (unchanged)​

Copy (changed)

Copy (unchanged)​

Copy (unchanged)​

Many copies were made from the originals.
​

As careful as copyists may be, when something is copied by hand over thousands of years, mistakes are bound to happen. That is what makes the many copies that can be compared so important.

If more than one copyist makes a mistake in copying a book, they are not likely to make the mistake in the same place, unless they collaborate together and purposefully make the change. When making a comparison of many different manuscripts from many different areas, scholars are able to find where changes have been made, whether on purpose or by accident. You can illustrate this with John 1:1 as with the chart below.

Example variations of John 1:1​
In the beginning was the word. And the word was with God and the word was God.​
At the end was the word. And the word was with God and the word was God.​
In the beginning was the Lord. And the Lord was with God and the Lord was God.​
In the begining was the word. And the word was with God and the word was Jesus.​

When you examine the 4 different copies of John 1:1, you see that there are changes to all but the first. However, you can still find what the original said by comparing them. You can see that all but one reads “beginning” instead of “end” so you can see that “beginning” is the original, and so on. When you include manuscripts from many different places, at different times, you can know with even more certainty what is original. The science of Textual Criticism has many other ways that they use to find the original wording of any old document when they can compare several manuscripts that have been put into practice by the compilers and translators of the Bible today.

We can have the utmost confidence that the Bible we have today accurately reflects what the authors originally wrote. We can have even more confidence that it has not been changed if we believe that it is the word of God. Why would God let His word be changed to the point that we don’t know what He said? We know that there have been copyists errors, but God has made sure that we have everything we need that pertains to life and godliness and nothing has been changed to keep us from having that.

You may have noticed the 4th copy misspelled beginning. This is type of alteration most often seen in comparing our bible of today with the whole NT ancient manuscripts from the 4th/5th Century or one of the 5,000 fragments of earlier manuscripts. There are also grammatical variations such as using cannot instead of can't. None of these alterations or variations have any impact on the text.

 

[BobbyLayne]

That it fits together as one book.

Well, its not really one book - at best its two books thrown together - and there really is not much continuity in terms of the description of God from one book to the other.

But, how it was thrown together, and why it feels like 1 book, is a man-made construct, and, I am a bit skeptical about the motives of the men who ultimately decided what was canon, and what was left on the editing room floor.

66 books

39 OT
27 NT

40 authors

one unfolding theme

 

[TennesseeJed]

That it fits together as one book.

Well, its not really one book - at best its two books thrown together - and there really is not much continuity in terms of the description of God from one book to the other.

But, how it was thrown together, and why it feels like 1 book, is a man-made construct, and, I am a bit skeptical about the motives of the men who ultimately decided what was canon, and what was left on the editing room floor.

66 books

39 OT
27 NT

40 authors

one unfolding theme

I think the notion of "fits together as one book" pre-supposes that each "book" is a chapter within the book.

The reality is the Old Testament and New Testament are separate "books", with separate agendas - and the vengeful God of the Old Testament gives way to the kinder, gentler, version in the New Testament.

 

[BobbyLayne]

ANCIENT MANUSCRIPT COMPARISON CHART

That it fits together as one book.

Well, its not really one book - at best its two books thrown together - and there really is not much continuity in terms of the description of God from one book to the other.

But, how it was thrown together, and why it feels like 1 book, is a man-made construct, and, I am a bit skeptical about the motives of the men who ultimately decided what was canon, and what was left on the editing room floor.

66 books

39 OT
27 NT

40 authors

one unfolding theme

I think the notion of "fits together as one book" pre-supposes that each "book" is a chapter within the book.

The reality is the Old Testament and New Testament are separate "books", with separate agendas - and the vengeful God of the Old Testament gives way to the kinder, gentler, version in the New Testament.

Again, just as a point of information:

• there are two testaments
• there are 66 books
• The Bible has 1189 chapters, with 929 in the Old Testament and 260 in the New Testament.

 

[zoonation]

It is the general scholarly consensus that scribe errors in copying text were not substantive.

It is also scholarly consensus that the synoptic gospels Matthew and Luke directly copied the gospel of Mark. As in, the authors had Mark's gospel in front of them while they were writing their version. ~610 of Mark's 678 total verses appear in Matthew and Luke, often with the exact same vocabulary, wording sequence and grammar. In fact, there are more than 30 separate passages from Mark's gospel that appear as word-for-word strings in Matthew and/or Luke. Furthermore, Matthew and Luke often differ from each other in order and sequence or narrative arrangement, but ONLY in relation to subject matter that is not the subject of Mark's gospel.

All of that is to say the evidence is overwhelming that M + L directly copied Mark's gospel which effectively settles the matter of whether the gospels were eyewitness accounts - they clearly were not. The net effect is that the historical accuracy of the subject matter is unreliable, as it is all based on (generational) hearsay evidence. Hearsay evidence is so unreliable that it is inadmissible in court. Hearsay evidence that is passed through generations is worse.

The most we can say, I think, is that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher that lived in Judea and was ultimately killed by the Romans by crucifixion.

 

[dgreen]

Got Questions

Is the Bible truly God’s Word?​

While I don't think it takes much to pick apart the above, I don't think that is really necessarily the point. I am guessing that the above is powerful to two groups of people - those that were born into this belief system and those "wretched souls" that are "all in" with the "amazing grace". Maybe some "cafeteria Christians" find comfort moving into this belief mode, but I think it turns off many, many more. I also think it is a main driver of those born into this belief system out of Christianity altogether. When something in the bible meaningful to them fails, then the whole house of cards collapses. When I read Deuteronomy 22 I don't need to twist and turn in ways that a pretzel would fall apart to avoid concluding that God is immoral. When I see rockets blasting right through the firmament layer's waters I don't need to pretend to not be "picking and choosing" this as merely being poetic license. Etc. Etc. But those born into this have no place to go but "out the door". Seems to a pretty big club here in the FFA.

So for the most part I don't see how this helps, even if, especially if this is correct and I'm wrong. Maybe it helps weed out those faux Christians (like me) from the "select", but if the goal is to bring as many as possible "into the fold" it sure seems counterintuitive.

This belief system allows for some god-awful policy choices to be pursued under the "authority of God's word". And it can easily be used this way because support for just about any bad policy can be found somewhere or another as God's people struggled to find their way to be godly people. Documenting much of this along the way.

I used to enjoy the threads here in the FFA back in the day when we'd debate the existence of God. That's no longer an interest of mine. I believe God exists, but I'm not trying to argue that with others. Similarly, I don't make efforts to prove the inspiration of Scripture. It's an assumption I hold, but it's not something I can adequately define right now and I don't try to prove it to others. I used to have a list of ways the Bible must behave in order for it to be the Word of God, but many of those have broken down for me. While I've had my biggest times of doubt the last couple years, the whole house of cards hasn't come down. This journey hasn't sent me away. I still hold to inspiration, but I find focusing on the human aspect of the text to be a great way to help me interpret it. Reading the Bible as human literature has been more helpful to me than my old approach to the Bible of picturing God himself literally speaking every word to me.

The Bible was absolutely inspired by God. You have hundreds of prophecies written hundreds of years before Christ that or fulfilled in His life. Including when he would be born where he would be born, that he would die, how he would die, that he would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, and many more details 1 to 200 of them. It is impossible for that to happen without it being inspired by God. You also have to consider how it all fits together being written by 40 different man over 1500 years. That is impossible also. That it fits together as one book.

it is all very convenient. almost like the (anonymous) author of matthew was trying to tell the story to fulfill the prophecies.

This is a very complicated topic. While I disagree with Paddington's view of prophecy-fulfillment, I also disagree with what I assume is your view. Paddington is saying all these specific things were once predicted and then they happened. What I think you are saying is that Matthew (just typing "Matthew" rather than "the author of Matthew" is much easier so I'll just keep doing that) made it all up to make it look like specific things that were once predicted actually happened.

But, my current understanding is that you are both making the mistake assuming that prophecy and fulfillment are primarily concerned with prediction and verification. Prophecy was not primarily about future predictions. And fulfillment was...well...complicated. Sometimes it does seem to be saying "God once said this specific thing would happen and now it has happened" but most of the time it is difficult to make that case. They approached things differently than we do, so it is an error, IMO, to read them in any way other than how they intended it to be taken.

"Christianity began not as a scholarly proposal about the meaning of the Scriptures but as a response to events focusing on a particular person, Jesus of Nazareth. The response required a language, and the language of Jesus' followers was that of the Bible (i.e., the OT) as read and interpreted in Jewish circles of the first century. If we wish to understand the language first-century believers used to speak of Jesus, we must have some sense of how they read their Bibles."

A classic example is Matthew's use of Hosea. Matthew says that an angel told Joseph to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt to escape the baby-killing Herod. Joseph did this to which Matthew said it fulfilled "Out of Egypt I called my son." Matthew is clearly quoting Hosea. But, if one goes and looks at Hosea, it isn't clear at all that it's a prediction of a coming Messiah. That's because it wasn't predicting anything at all. It was looking back at the Exodus and God bringing his people out of slavery in Egypt. Matthew's use of "fulfillment" here isn't trying to say that Hosea once predicted that baby Jesus would be called out of Egypt (notice this "fulfillment" happens when Jesus goes TO Egypt not when they are later called out of Egypt - Matthew could have put this "fulfillment" a few verses later when they return to Israel but he didn't!).

Now, one response would be to say that Hosea was actually predicting that or that God, through inspiration, embedded a deeper second meaning of the phrase "Out of Egypt I called my son." On the other extreme, one could respond with something like "See, Matthew is clearly a liar or a crazy person!" The former response forces prophecy and fulfillment to have to be about prediction and verification while ignoring the inspired context of Hosea. The latter gives little credit to Matthew as an author and appears to assume that the early audience were all hoodwinked by Matthew's (not-so) clever wording. (Most of the criticisms of the Bible bring up things that the Bible appears to be open and honest about. The Bible isn't hiding anything. Matthew didn't hide something here. It's right there for anyone to go read Hosea.) Both responses either ignore or are ignorant of "how they read their Bibles" which is much more important that how we want it to work.

And Paddington brought up predictions of how Jesus would die. One example is Psalm 22. Read it in its own context. It's not about how some future Messiah, unknown at the time, will die. But, the Psalm, as a whole, provided great language to the NT authors to help them talk about the events of the crucifixion. They adopted and appropriated the language to tell their story. The crucifixion fulfilled Psalm 22 in that it was an event that lived out (incarnated) both the anguish and the hope of Psalm 22. It may seem weird to us, but it was completely normal for them.

Yeah, that's not how we'd record events. We do it differently. But, as I think I've said 100 times in this thread, we shouldn't read 2000 year old texts from a vastly different culture as if it was written by a 21st century American journalist concerned with getting all the facts straight.

 

[Scoresman]

I just find it a little suspect that so many books were left out of the Bible. How do you distinguish between writings that are inspired by God? Why are one person’s writings that are God inspired true and others not? Who makes this decision?

It’s hard to trust because Christianity over the centuries has been twisted and molded to be used as a form of controlling the masses. It’s why I have very little faith in any organized religion. If I had belief in a higher power, I highly doubt it would follow any established church who insists their version of God is correct.

 

[zoonation]

Got Questions

Is the Bible truly God’s Word?​

While I don't think it takes much to pick apart the above, I don't think that is really necessarily the point. I am guessing that the above is powerful to two groups of people - those that were born into this belief system and those "wretched souls" that are "all in" with the "amazing grace". Maybe some "cafeteria Christians" find comfort moving into this belief mode, but I think it turns off many, many more. I also think it is a main driver of those born into this belief system out of Christianity altogether. When something in the bible meaningful to them fails, then the whole house of cards collapses. When I read Deuteronomy 22 I don't need to twist and turn in ways that a pretzel would fall apart to avoid concluding that God is immoral. When I see rockets blasting right through the firmament layer's waters I don't need to pretend to not be "picking and choosing" this as merely being poetic license. Etc. Etc. But those born into this have no place to go but "out the door". Seems to a pretty big club here in the FFA.

So for the most part I don't see how this helps, even if, especially if this is correct and I'm wrong. Maybe it helps weed out those faux Christians (like me) from the "select", but if the goal is to bring as many as possible "into the fold" it sure seems counterintuitive.

This belief system allows for some god-awful policy choices to be pursued under the "authority of God's word". And it can easily be used this way because support for just about any bad policy can be found somewhere or another as God's people struggled to find their way to be godly people. Documenting much of this along the way.

I used to enjoy the threads here in the FFA back in the day when we'd debate the existence of God. That's no longer an interest of mine. I believe God exists, but I'm not trying to argue that with others. Similarly, I don't make efforts to prove the inspiration of Scripture. It's an assumption I hold, but it's not something I can adequately define right now and I don't try to prove it to others. I used to have a list of ways the Bible must behave in order for it to be the Word of God, but many of those have broken down for me. While I've had my biggest times of doubt the last couple years, the whole house of cards hasn't come down. This journey hasn't sent me away. I still hold to inspiration, but I find focusing on the human aspect of the text to be a great way to help me interpret it. Reading the Bible as human literature has been more helpful to me than my old approach to the Bible of picturing God himself literally speaking every word to me.

The Bible was absolutely inspired by God. You have hundreds of prophecies written hundreds of years before Christ that or fulfilled in His life. Including when he would be born where he would be born, that he would die, how he would die, that he would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, and many more details 1 to 200 of them. It is impossible for that to happen without it being inspired by God. You also have to consider how it all fits together being written by 40 different man over 1500 years. That is impossible also. That it fits together as one book.

it is all very convenient. almost like the (anonymous) author of matthew was trying to tell the story to fulfill the prophecies.

This is a very complicated topic. While I disagree with Paddington's view of prophecy-fulfillment, I also disagree with what I assume is your view. Paddington is saying all these specific things were once predicted and then they happened. What I think you are saying is that Matthew (just typing "Matthew" rather than "the author of Matthew" is much easier so I'll just keep doing that) made it all up to make it look like specific things that were once predicted actually happened.

But, my current understanding is that you are both making the mistake assuming that prophecy and fulfillment are primarily concerned with prediction and verification. Prophecy was not primarily about future predictions. And fulfillment was...well...complicated. Sometimes it does seem to be saying "God once said this specific thing would happen and now it has happened" but most of the time it is difficult to make that case. They approached things differently than we do, so it is an error, IMO, to read them in any way other than how they intended it to be taken.

"Christianity began not as a scholarly proposal about the meaning of the Scriptures but as a response to events focusing on a particular person, Jesus of Nazareth. The response required a language, and the language of Jesus' followers was that of the Bible (i.e., the OT) as read and interpreted in Jewish circles of the first century. If we wish to understand the language first-century believers used to speak of Jesus, we must have some sense of how they read their Bibles."

A classic example is Matthew's use of Hosea. Matthew says that an angel told Joseph to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt to escape the baby-killing Herod. Joseph did this to which Matthew said it fulfilled "Out of Egypt I called my son." Matthew is clearly quoting Hosea. But, if one goes and looks at Hosea, it isn't clear at all that it's a prediction of a coming Messiah. That's because it wasn't predicting anything at all. It was looking back at the Exodus and God bringing his people out of slavery in Egypt. Matthew's use of "fulfillment" here isn't trying to say that Hosea once predicted that baby Jesus would be called out of Egypt (notice this "fulfillment" happens when Jesus goes TO Egypt not when they are later called out of Egypt - Matthew could have put this "fulfillment" a few verses later when they return to Israel but he didn't!).

Now, one response would be to say that Hosea was actually predicting that or that God, through inspiration, embedded a deeper second meaning of the phrase "Out of Egypt I called my son." On the other extreme, one could respond with something like "See, Matthew is clearly a liar or a crazy person!" The former response forces prophecy and fulfillment to have to be about prediction and verification while ignoring the inspired context of Hosea. The latter gives little credit to Matthew as an author and appears to assume that the early audience were all hoodwinked by Matthew's (not-so) clever wording. (Most of the criticisms of the Bible bring up things that the Bible appears to be open and honest about. The Bible isn't hiding anything. Matthew didn't hide something here. It's right there for anyone to go read Hosea.) Both responses either ignore or are ignorant of "how they read their Bibles" which is much more important that how we want it to work.

And Paddington brought up predictions of how Jesus would die. One example is Psalm 22. Read it in its own context. It's not about how some future Messiah, unknown at the time, will die. But, the Psalm, as a whole, provided great language to the NT authors to help them talk about the events of the crucifixion. They adopted and appropriated the language to tell their story. The crucifixion fulfilled Psalm 22 in that it was an event that lived out (incarnated) both the anguish and the hope of Psalm 22. It may seem weird to us, but it was completely normal for them.

Yeah, that's not how we'd record events. We do it differently. But, as I think I've said 100 times in this thread, we shouldn't read 2000 year old texts from a vastly different culture as if it was written by a 21st century American journalist concerned with getting all the facts straight.

Thanks for this. I understand what you mean by prophecy and fulfillment. My view is that story of Jesus going to Egypt is pure fiction. Both the Matthew and Luke birth narratives were fabricated (in each case for different reasons).

Edit to add - I agree we should not read the gospels or other bible books the way we read modern historical texts. The gospels are literary works that were never intended to be written as historically accurate accounts IMO.

 

[dgreen]

Got Questions

Is the Bible truly God’s Word?​

While I don't think it takes much to pick apart the above, I don't think that is really necessarily the point. I am guessing that the above is powerful to two groups of people - those that were born into this belief system and those "wretched souls" that are "all in" with the "amazing grace". Maybe some "cafeteria Christians" find comfort moving into this belief mode, but I think it turns off many, many more. I also think it is a main driver of those born into this belief system out of Christianity altogether. When something in the bible meaningful to them fails, then the whole house of cards collapses. When I read Deuteronomy 22 I don't need to twist and turn in ways that a pretzel would fall apart to avoid concluding that God is immoral. When I see rockets blasting right through the firmament layer's waters I don't need to pretend to not be "picking and choosing" this as merely being poetic license. Etc. Etc. But those born into this have no place to go but "out the door". Seems to a pretty big club here in the FFA.

So for the most part I don't see how this helps, even if, especially if this is correct and I'm wrong. Maybe it helps weed out those faux Christians (like me) from the "select", but if the goal is to bring as many as possible "into the fold" it sure seems counterintuitive.

This belief system allows for some god-awful policy choices to be pursued under the "authority of God's word". And it can easily be used this way because support for just about any bad policy can be found somewhere or another as God's people struggled to find their way to be godly people. Documenting much of this along the way.

I used to enjoy the threads here in the FFA back in the day when we'd debate the existence of God. That's no longer an interest of mine. I believe God exists, but I'm not trying to argue that with others. Similarly, I don't make efforts to prove the inspiration of Scripture. It's an assumption I hold, but it's not something I can adequately define right now and I don't try to prove it to others. I used to have a list of ways the Bible must behave in order for it to be the Word of God, but many of those have broken down for me. While I've had my biggest times of doubt the last couple years, the whole house of cards hasn't come down. This journey hasn't sent me away. I still hold to inspiration, but I find focusing on the human aspect of the text to be a great way to help me interpret it. Reading the Bible as human literature has been more helpful to me than my old approach to the Bible of picturing God himself literally speaking every word to me.

The Bible was absolutely inspired by God. You have hundreds of prophecies written hundreds of years before Christ that or fulfilled in His life. Including when he would be born where he would be born, that he would die, how he would die, that he would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, and many more details 1 to 200 of them. It is impossible for that to happen without it being inspired by God. You also have to consider how it all fits together being written by 40 different man over 1500 years. That is impossible also. That it fits together as one book.

it is all very convenient. almost like the (anonymous) author of matthew was trying to tell the story to fulfill the prophecies.

This is a very complicated topic. While I disagree with Paddington's view of prophecy-fulfillment, I also disagree with what I assume is your view. Paddington is saying all these specific things were once predicted and then they happened. What I think you are saying is that Matthew (just typing "Matthew" rather than "the author of Matthew" is much easier so I'll just keep doing that) made it all up to make it look like specific things that were once predicted actually happened.

But, my current understanding is that you are both making the mistake assuming that prophecy and fulfillment are primarily concerned with prediction and verification. Prophecy was not primarily about future predictions. And fulfillment was...well...complicated. Sometimes it does seem to be saying "God once said this specific thing would happen and now it has happened" but most of the time it is difficult to make that case. They approached things differently than we do, so it is an error, IMO, to read them in any way other than how they intended it to be taken.

"Christianity began not as a scholarly proposal about the meaning of the Scriptures but as a response to events focusing on a particular person, Jesus of Nazareth. The response required a language, and the language of Jesus' followers was that of the Bible (i.e., the OT) as read and interpreted in Jewish circles of the first century. If we wish to understand the language first-century believers used to speak of Jesus, we must have some sense of how they read their Bibles."

A classic example is Matthew's use of Hosea. Matthew says that an angel told Joseph to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt to escape the baby-killing Herod. Joseph did this to which Matthew said it fulfilled "Out of Egypt I called my son." Matthew is clearly quoting Hosea. But, if one goes and looks at Hosea, it isn't clear at all that it's a prediction of a coming Messiah. That's because it wasn't predicting anything at all. It was looking back at the Exodus and God bringing his people out of slavery in Egypt. Matthew's use of "fulfillment" here isn't trying to say that Hosea once predicted that baby Jesus would be called out of Egypt (notice this "fulfillment" happens when Jesus goes TO Egypt not when they are later called out of Egypt - Matthew could have put this "fulfillment" a few verses later when they return to Israel but he didn't!).

Now, one response would be to say that Hosea was actually predicting that or that God, through inspiration, embedded a deeper second meaning of the phrase "Out of Egypt I called my son." On the other extreme, one could respond with something like "See, Matthew is clearly a liar or a crazy person!" The former response forces prophecy and fulfillment to have to be about prediction and verification while ignoring the inspired context of Hosea. The latter gives little credit to Matthew as an author and appears to assume that the early audience were all hoodwinked by Matthew's (not-so) clever wording. (Most of the criticisms of the Bible bring up things that the Bible appears to be open and honest about. The Bible isn't hiding anything. Matthew didn't hide something here. It's right there for anyone to go read Hosea.) Both responses either ignore or are ignorant of "how they read their Bibles" which is much more important that how we want it to work.

And Paddington brought up predictions of how Jesus would die. One example is Psalm 22. Read it in its own context. It's not about how some future Messiah, unknown at the time, will die. But, the Psalm, as a whole, provided great language to the NT authors to help them talk about the events of the crucifixion. They adopted and appropriated the language to tell their story. The crucifixion fulfilled Psalm 22 in that it was an event that lived out (incarnated) both the anguish and the hope of Psalm 22. It may seem weird to us, but it was completely normal for them.

Yeah, that's not how we'd record events. We do it differently. But, as I think I've said 100 times in this thread, we shouldn't read 2000 year old texts from a vastly different culture as if it was written by a 21st century American journalist concerned with getting all the facts straight.

Thanks for this. I understand what you mean by prophecy and fulfillment. My view is that story of Jesus going to Egypt is pure fiction. Both the Matthew and Luke birth narratives were fabricated (in each case for different reasons).

I don't have a big problem with thinking Joseph never fled Israel with Mary and Jesus and went to Egypt. But, I think that's only problematic if one thinks Matthew's intent was to primarily tell historically accurate information. It only becomes "unreliable" in my mind if it fails to do what it was intended to do. I'm also ok if someone does think it happened. But, I'd argue that Matthew's purpose for including it wasn't to give historical facts. He's making a point and that's what matters, IMO.

 

[BobbyLayne]

ANCIENT MANUSCRIPT COMPARISON CHART​

Author	Date Written	Earliest Copy	Time elapsed original & oldest copy	# of Copies	Accuracy of Copies
Lucretius	died 55 or 53 B.C.		1100 years	2	---
Pliny	A.D. 61-113	A.D. 850	750 years	7	---
Plato	427-347 B.C.	A.D. 900	1250 years	7	---
Demosthenes	4th Cent. B.C.	A.D. 1100	800	8	---
Herodotus	480-425 B.C.	A.D. 900	1300	8	---
Suetonius	A.D. 75-160	A.D. 950	800	8	---
Thucydides	460-400 B.C.	A.D. 900	1300	8	---
Euripides	480-406 B.C.	A.D. 1100	1300	9	---
Aristophanes	450-385 B.C.	A.D. 900	1200	10	---
Caesar	100-44 B.C.	A.D. 900	1000	10	---
Livy	59 B.C.-A.D. 17	---	???	20	---
Tacitus	circa A.D. 100	A.D. 1100	1000	20	---
Aristotle	384-322 B.C.	A.D. 1100	1400	49	---
Sophocles	496-406 B.C.	A.D. 1000	1400	193	---
Homer (Odyssey)	900 B.C.	400 B.C.	500	25?	95%
Homer (Iliad)	900 B.C.	400 B.C.	500	1800	95%
New Testament	A.D. 50-90	A.D. 130	less than 100 years	5800	99.9%
New Testament	oldest complete copy NT	after A.D. 325	Codex Sinaiticus (NT) - 4th century, less than 300 years		99.5%

NOTES:

There are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing.

The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure.

In addition, there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic Languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Got Questions

Is the Bible truly God’s Word?​

Our answer to this question will not only determine how we view the Bible and its importance to our lives, but it will also have an eternal impact on us. If the Bible is truly God’s Word, then we should cherish it, study it, obey it, and fully trust it. If the Bible is truly the Word of God, then it is the final authority for all matters of faith, practice, and morality. If the Bible is the Word of God, then to dismiss it is to dismiss God Himself.

The fact that God gave us the Bible is an evidence of His love for us. God communicated to mankind what He is like and how we can have a right relationship with Him. These are things that we could not have known had God not divinely revealed them to us in the Bible. The Bible contains everything mankind needs to know about God in order to have a right relationship with Him.

How can we know that the Bible is the Word of God and not just a good book? What is unique about the Bible that sets it apart from all other books ever written? Is there any evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word? These types of questions must be seriously examined. There can be no doubt that the Bible does claim to be the Word of God. This is seen in Paul’s commendation to Timothy: “From infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:15–17).

There are both internal and external evidences that the Bible is truly God’s Word.

Internal Evidence that the Bible is God’s Word

Internal evidences are those things within the Bible that testify of its divine origin. One internal evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word is its unity. Even though it is really sixty-six individual books, written on three continents, in three different languages, over a period of approximately 1,500 years, by more than 40 authors who came from many walks of life, the Bible remains one unified book from beginning to end without contradiction. This unity is unique from all other books and is evidence of the divine origin of the words that God moved men to record.

Another internal evidence that indicates the Bible is truly God’s Word is prophecy. The Bible contains hundreds of detailed prophecies relating to the future of various nations, certain cities, and all mankind. Other prophecies concern the coming of the Messiah, the Savior of all who would believe in Him. Unlike the prophecies found in other religious books or those by men such as Nostradamus, biblical prophecies are extremely detailed. There are over three hundred prophecies concerning Jesus Christ in the Old Testament. Not only was His lineage foretold and where He would be born, but also how He would die and that He would rise again. There simply is no logical way to explain the fulfilled prophecies in the Bible other than citing divine origin. There is no other religious book with the amount of detailed predictive prophecy the Bible contains.

A third internal evidence of the divine origin of the Bible is its unique authority and power. While this evidence is more subjective than the first two, it is no less a powerful testimony that the Bible is God’s Word. The Bible’s authority is unlike that of any other book ever written. This power is seen in the way countless lives have been supernaturally transformed. Drug addicts have been cured by it, homosexuals set free by it, derelicts and deadbeats transformed by it, hardened criminals reformed by it, sinners rebuked by it, and hate turned to love by it. The Bible does possess a dynamic and transforming power that is only possible because it is truly God’s Word.

External Evidence that the Bible is God’s Word

There are also external evidences that indicate the Bible is truly the Word of God. One is the historicity of the Bible. Because the Bible details historical events, its accuracy is subject to verification like any other historical document. Through archaeological evidence and extra biblical writings, the historical accounts of the Bible proved time and again to be accurate and true. In fact, all the archaeological and manuscript evidence supporting the Bible makes it the best-documented book from the ancient world. That the Bible accurately records historically verifiable events helps substantiate its claim to be the very Word of God and supports trust concerning other matters the Bible addresses.

Another external evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word is the integrity of its human authors. In studying the lives of the authors of Scripture, we find them to be honest and sincere. The fact that they were willing to die often excruciating deaths for what they believed testifies that these men truly believed God had spoken to them. The men who wrote the New Testament and many hundreds of other believers (1 Corinthians 15:6) knew the truth of their message because they had spent time with Jesus Christ after He had risen from the dead. Seeing the risen Christ had a tremendous impact on them. They went from hiding in fear to being willing to die for the message God had revealed to them. Their lives and deaths testify to the fact that the Bible truly is God’s Word.

Another external evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word is the indestructibility of the Bible. The Bible has suffered more vicious attacks and attempts to destroy it than any other book in history. From early Roman Emperors like Diocletian, through communist dictators and on to modern-day atheists, the Bible has withstood a constant onslaught from detractors. Yet it endures and is still today the most widely published book in the world.

Throughout history, skeptics have regarded the Bible as mythological, but archaeology has confirmed it as historical. Opponents have attacked its teaching as primitive and outdated, but its moral and legal concepts have had a positive influence on societies throughout the world. It continues to be attacked by pseudo-science, psychology, and political movements, yet it remains just as true and relevant today as it was when it was first written. This should not surprise us. After all, Jesus said, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away” (Mark 13:31).

The Bible, unique among books, has transformed countless lives and swayed whole cultures. After looking at the evidence, one can say without a doubt that God has spoken and that, yes, the Bible is truly God’s Word.

While I don't think it takes much to pick apart the above, I don't think that is really necessarily the point. I am guessing that the above is powerful to two groups of people - those that were born into this belief system and those "wretched souls" that are "all in" with the "amazing grace". Maybe some "cafeteria Christians" find comfort moving into this belief mode, but I think it turns off many, many more. I also think it is a main driver of those born into this belief system out of Christianity altogether. When something in the bible meaningful to them fails, then the whole house of cards collapses. When I read Deuteronomy 22 I don't need to twist and turn in ways that a pretzel would fall apart to avoid concluding that God is immoral. When I see rockets blasting right through the firmament layer's waters I don't need to pretend to not be "picking and choosing" this as merely being poetic license. Etc. Etc. But those born into this have no place to go but "out the door". Seems to a pretty big club here in the FFA.

So for the most part I don't see how this helps, even if, especially if this is correct and I'm wrong. Maybe it helps weed out those faux Christians (like me) from the "select", but if the goal is to bring as many as possible "into the fold" it sure seems counterintuitive.

This belief system allows for some god-awful policy choices to be pursued under the "authority of God's word". And it can easily be used this way because support for just about any bad policy can be found somewhere or another as God's people struggled to find their way to be godly people. Documenting much of this along the way.

reminds me of an old story...

Years ago two men were talking. one was the Christian who believed the Bible and the other was someone who didn't.

The unbeliever was challenging the believer much like you here. The believer asked
"Let's just pretend that the Bible is true. With that in mind, is there anything that you would have to change in your life?

The unbeliever rolled his eyes and said

"Of course! If I believed I would have to live according to what I believed."

To which the believer replied,

"So actually the problem is not that you don't believe the Bible is true, but that you don't want it to run your life."

---

The Bible has a constant moral code that starts in Genesis and runs all the way through revelation. That code ("the law") proved that no one can keep it.

It is only through the blood and Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ that we will be seen as righteous before God, not through anything we do.

 

[Captain Cranks]

The Bible was absolutely inspired by God. You have hundreds of prophecies written hundreds of years before Christ that or fulfilled in His life. Including when he would be born where he would be born, that he would die, how he would die, that he would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, and many more details 1 to 200 of them. It is impossible for that to happen without it being inspired by God. You also have to consider how it all fits together being written by 40 different man over 1500 years. That is impossible also. That it fits together as one book.

Another theory is that man wrote it to fit the prophecies and many of the events didn't actually occur.

 

[Captain Cranks]

"So actually the problem is not that you don't believe the Bible is true, but that you don't want it to run your life."

Yeah, that's not the problem.

 

[BobbyLayne]

"So actually the problem is not that you don't believe the Bible is true, but that you don't want it to run your life."

Yeah, that's not the problem.

Shall we play 20 questions?

Is it bigger than a breadbox?

 

[Captain Cranks]

Shall we play 20 questions?

Is it bigger than a breadbox?

If I felt the Bible was the inspired word of God I'd have no problem lining up and attempting to live my life according to it.

It's that it defies logic and reason and the simplest and likely conclusion is it's just one of thousands of texts that man has developed throughout civilization to explain our existence and purpose.

The idea that we reject it out of convenience is dismissive of much bigger issues. Practically every conclusion that the religious draw from their texts can be explained in simpler ways without the need for a deity. Example: God wants us to live our lives as XYZ. Actually, a man who wrote the text has concluded that we should live our lives as XYZ.

 

[BobbyLayne]

Shall we play 20 questions?

Is it bigger than a breadbox?

If I felt the Bible was the inspired word of God I'd have no problem lining up and attempting to live my life according to it.

It's the fact that it defies logic and reason and that the simplest and likely conclusion is that it's just one of thousands of texts that man has developed throughout civilization to explain our existence and purpose.

The idea that we reject it out of convenience is dismissive of much bigger issues.

to explain our existence and purpose

That's a question everyone has to decide at some point. I actually believe every human who has the mental capacity has pondered it.

Solomon must have wondered it when he wrote this (Ecclesiastes 3):

What do workers gain from their toil?
I have seen the burden God has laid on the human race.
He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.
I know that there is nothing better for people than to be happy and to do good while they live.
That each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil—this is the gift of God.

Yet even the one whom God gave @a wise and discerning mind” wrote a little later in the same chapter

I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals.
Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless.
All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.
Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

So I saw that there is nothing better for a person than to enjoy their work, because that is their lot. For who can bring them to see what will happen after them?

The text provides answers to some of those existential questions later at the conclusion of the book, but this definitely illustrates the uncertainty & mystery of life. We cannot know for certain. We can have faith in things unseen; we hope in things that cannot be proven with certainty.

But to ask the questions is universal. I believe that's what is meant by

He has also set eternity in the human heart

- that longing is within everyone.

yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end

- but the answers, none of us knows with absolute certainty.

We have faith, and that faith lies on a firm foundation, but until the day we appear before God, we won't know, will we?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

"So actually the problem is not that you don't believe the Bible is true, but that you don't want it to run your life."

Here is the problem. I'm not a non-believer so I actually ask the opposite question. If I didn't believe in God what in my life would change? My answer is "pretty much nothing". I find that the more I lean into "Love thy Neighbor" the happier I am. I'm not particularly concerned about death or the afterlife. No god worth worshipping is condemning the children he loves to eternal damnation for "guessing wrong" or being born in the wrong place to never have a chance to guess at all. That god may very well exist, and if so, I'm doomed. Now maybe a god selects a few to be with him in the afterlife - maybe those that guess right and lets everyone else die, oh well - fair enough. So, I'm not a believer to cover my bases just in case. And I'm not living my life to achieve some reward in the afterlife. I'm just selfishly trying to find the most happiness for me which just happens to require the most selflessly version of me I can be. This little revelation just reinforces my belief though.

Now to be fair I know plenty of people that absolutely need to have the bible run their life or they would simply chase pleasure, the next elusive high until they spiraled into the grave. But all too often some Christians act that without the bible this would be anyone and everyone. I think they are projecting.

 

[BobbyLayne]

"So actually the problem is not that you don't believe the Bible is true, but that you don't want it to run your life."

Here is the problem. I'm not a non-believer so I actually ask the opposite question. If I didn't believe in God what in my life would change? My answer is "pretty much nothing". I find that the more I lean into "Love thy Neighbor" the happier I am. I'm not particularly concerned about death or the afterlife. No god worth worshipping is condemning the children he loves to eternal damnation for "guessing wrong" or being born in the wrong place to never have a chance to guess at all. That god may very well exist, and if so, I'm doomed. Now maybe a god selects a few to be with him in the afterlife - maybe those that guess right and lets everyone else die, oh well - fair enough. So, I'm not a believer to cover my bases just in case. And I'm not living my life to achieve some reward in the afterlife. I'm just selfishly trying to find the most happiness for me which just happens to require the most selflessly version of me I can be. This little revelation just reinforces my belief though.

Now to be fair I know plenty of people that absolutely need to have the bible run their life or they would simply chase pleasure, the next elusive high until they spiraled into the grave. But all too often some Christians act that without the bible this would be anyone and everyone. I think they are projecting.

We’re in at least 50% agreement, probably higher if we ever took the time to get to know one another.

A lawyer once asked Jesus

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?”

And he said to him,

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.

This is the great and first commandment.

And a second is like it:

You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Matthew 22:36-40

Love God, love people. That’s what being a Jesus follower means to me.

 

[dkp993]

Shall we play 20 questions?

Is it bigger than a breadbox?

If I felt the Bible was the inspired word of God I'd have no problem lining up and attempting to live my life according to it.

It's that it defies logic and reason and the simplest and likely conclusion is it's just one of thousands of texts that man has developed throughout civilization to explain our existence and purpose.

The idea that we reject it out of convenience is dismissive of much bigger issues. Practically every conclusion that the religious draw from their texts can be explained in simpler ways without the need for a deity. Example: God wants us to live our lives as XYZ. Actually, a man who wrote the text has concluded that we should live our lives as XYZ.

Also the problem is that if it is the word of God and accurate thought history then we should still be stoning people for working on sabbath or that eating pork is forbidden, or any other of the archaic teachings.

Imo it’s either THE word of God or it’s an ancient text of moral teachings. The latter does nothing to prove God’s existence, if it’s the former, well 99.9% of all the population that has ever existed is in trouble.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

"So actually the problem is not that you don't believe the Bible is true, but that you don't want it to run your life."

Here is the problem. I'm not a non-believer so I actually ask the opposite question. If I didn't believe in God what in my life would change? My answer is "pretty much nothing". I find that the more I lean into "Love thy Neighbor" the happier I am. I'm not particularly concerned about death or the afterlife. No god worth worshipping is condemning the children he loves to eternal damnation for "guessing wrong" or being born in the wrong place to never have a chance to guess at all. That god may very well exist, and if so, I'm doomed. Now maybe a god selects a few to be with him in the afterlife - maybe those that guess right and lets everyone else die, oh well - fair enough. So, I'm not a believer to cover my bases just in case. And I'm not living my life to achieve some reward in the afterlife. I'm just selfishly trying to find the most happiness for me which just happens to require the most selflessly version of me I can be. This little revelation just reinforces my belief though.

Now to be fair I know plenty of people that absolutely need to have the bible run their life or they would simply chase pleasure, the next elusive high until they spiraled into the grave. But all too often some Christians act that without the bible this would be anyone and everyone. I think they are projecting.

We’re in at least 50% agreement, probably higher if we ever took the time to get to know one another.

A lawyer once asked Jesus

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?”

And he said to him,

“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.

This is the great and first commandment.

And a second is like it:

You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Matthew 22:36-40

Love God, love people. That’s what being a Jesus follower means to me.

Romans 13:10
Galatians 5:14

I tend to believe that the only real way to love God is to love his children. I mean I go on Sunday to sing his praises an all that (okay, I can't sing so technically not "sing"), but I think that is more for me than God.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I just find it a little suspect that so many books were left out of the Bible. How do you distinguish between writings that are inspired by God? Why are one person’s writings that are God inspired true and others not? Who makes this decision?

It’s hard to trust because Christianity over the centuries has been twisted and molded to be used as a form of controlling the masses. It’s why I have very little faith in any organized religion. If I had belief in a higher power, I highly doubt it would follow any established church who insists their version of God is correct.

This is a good question that would naturally occur to a sharp unbeliever. It deserves a good answer. I'll try to provide a very brief one that probably doesn't do the topic justice.

Here's the thing. Christianity, properly understood, is 100% an offshoot of Judaism. It is rooted in Judaism, and it purports to be the inheritor of the religious tradition that we Christians refer to as the Old Testament, or (subtle difference but the same for our purposes) "the law." So when we're selecting books for the New Testament and forming the canon, we would naturally select for books that align with Judaism and select against books that don't align.

That's where the problem comes in. During the time of the early church, a philosophy called Gnosticism was quite popular. Gnosticism is sort of a hybrid of Christianity and Platonism. One of its fundamental claims is that the material world is bad/evil, and that true fulfillment is found only in the spiritual world. It is common for Gnostics to buy into some form of maltheism -- the idea that the being who created the world must have been bad, because creation was bad. You can see how this is strongly compatible with Platonism, but you can't reconcile this with the Old Testament. God created the world, and it was good. The Hebrew scriptures always talk about the God's creation as good. God's very nature is that of a creator. Jews (and Christians) believe in an actual, physical resurrection in actual bodies, not angels floating around in clouds playing little harps. That's why Gnosticism is considered a heresy (wrong belief, not evil).

(Also, it's worth noting that Christianity has traditionally been pretty pro-woman. Not so for the Gnostics, and it's easy to see why. They don't like embodiment and they don't like creation, so naturally they wouldn't like the people who produce other people in kind of gross, body-horror ways. That's not the main thing, but it's a worthwhile aside.)

Some of the books that didn't make the cut didn't make it because their authorship was disputed or stuff like that. But many of them were omitted because they were Gnostic. The Gospel of Judas and the Gospel of Mary would both be excellent examples of that sort of thing. If you read them, and if you're familiar with the canonical Bible, you'll instantly see why they don't "fit."

 

[Captain Cranks]

- but the answers, none of us knows with absolute certainty.

This is the key. When religious folks like Paddington start these threads, are they framed as "I believe this is how to get to heaven when you die" or "I know this is how you get to heave when you die"? My experience with the Christian community is that it's the latter and not the former. There's no bit of humility about whether or not it's true. These are the facts and now go make everyone else believe it.

So again, my rejection isn't about convenience. It's about not having faith that the stories are true because they don't pass logical muster.

 

[HellToupee]

Love God, love people. That’s what being a Jesus follower means to me.

 

[dgreen]

- but the answers, none of us knows with absolute certainty.

This is the key. When religious folks like Paddington start these threads, are they framed as "I believe this is how to get to heaven when you die" or "I know this is how you get to heave when you die"? My experience with the Christian community is that it's the latter and not the former. There's no bit of humility about whether or not it's true. These are the facts and now go make everyone else believe it.

So again, my rejection isn't about convenience. It's about not having faith that the stories are true because they don't pass logical muster.

What do you mean by "true"? Historically and scientifically accurate? Or something else?

 

[Captain Cranks]

What do you mean by "true"? Historically and scientifically accurate? Or something else?

Historically accurate and/or divinely inspired.

 

[Paddington]

What do you mean by "true"? Historically and scientifically accurate? Or something else?

Historically accurate and/or divinely inspired.

Yes. There has never been an archaeological find that has disproven the Bible, only discoveries that affirm its truth. Divinely inspired for sure

 

[dkp993]

What do you mean by "true"? Historically and scientifically accurate? Or something else?

Historically accurate and/or divinely inspired.

Yes. There has never been an archaeological find that has disproven the Bible, only discoveries that affirm its truth. Divinely inspired for sure

Expand on this line of thought please.

 

[Paddington]

Got Questions

Is the Bible truly God’s Word?​

While I don't think it takes much to pick apart the above, I don't think that is really necessarily the point. I am guessing that the above is powerful to two groups of people - those that were born into this belief system and those "wretched souls" that are "all in" with the "amazing grace". Maybe some "cafeteria Christians" find comfort moving into this belief mode, but I think it turns off many, many more. I also think it is a main driver of those born into this belief system out of Christianity altogether. When something in the bible meaningful to them fails, then the whole house of cards collapses. When I read Deuteronomy 22 I don't need to twist and turn in ways that a pretzel would fall apart to avoid concluding that God is immoral. When I see rockets blasting right through the firmament layer's waters I don't need to pretend to not be "picking and choosing" this as merely being poetic license. Etc. Etc. But those born into this have no place to go but "out the door". Seems to a pretty big club here in the FFA.

So for the most part I don't see how this helps, even if, especially if this is correct and I'm wrong. Maybe it helps weed out those faux Christians (like me) from the "select", but if the goal is to bring as many as possible "into the fold" it sure seems counterintuitive.

This belief system allows for some god-awful policy choices to be pursued under the "authority of God's word". And it can easily be used this way because support for just about any bad policy can be found somewhere or another as God's people struggled to find their way to be godly people. Documenting much of this along the way.

I used to enjoy the threads here in the FFA back in the day when we'd debate the existence of God. That's no longer an interest of mine. I believe God exists, but I'm not trying to argue that with others. Similarly, I don't make efforts to prove the inspiration of Scripture. It's an assumption I hold, but it's not something I can adequately define right now and I don't try to prove it to others. I used to have a list of ways the Bible must behave in order for it to be the Word of God, but many of those have broken down for me. While I've had my biggest times of doubt the last couple years, the whole house of cards hasn't come down. This journey hasn't sent me away. I still hold to inspiration, but I find focusing on the human aspect of the text to be a great way to help me interpret it. Reading the Bible as human literature has been more helpful to me than my old approach to the Bible of picturing God himself literally speaking every word to me.

The Bible was absolutely inspired by God. You have hundreds of prophecies written hundreds of years before Christ that or fulfilled in His life. Including when he would be born where he would be born, that he would die, how he would die, that he would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, and many more details 1 to 200 of them. It is impossible for that to happen without it being inspired by God. You also have to consider how it all fits together being written by 40 different man over 1500 years. That is impossible also. That it fits together as one book.

it is all very convenient. almost like the (anonymous) author of matthew was trying to tell the story to fulfill the prophecies.

FALSE. Do you believe that the prophecies of Christ are ONLY recorded in Matthew? You have a lot to learn. They are fulfilled in all 4 Gospels. Matthew couldn't have lied about where He was born, when He was born, betrayed for 30 pieces of silver and over 100 more details about Christ. The Historians from Christ's day would have exposed Matthew as a fraud, but not a single person refuted not only Matthew's writings, but any other Scripture.

 

[Paddington]

- but the answers, none of us knows with absolute certainty.

This is the key. When religious folks like Paddington start these threads, are they framed as "I believe this is how to get to heaven when you die" or "I know this is how you get to heave when you die"? My experience with the Christian community is that it's the latter and not the former. There's no bit of humility about whether or not it's true. These are the facts and now go make everyone else believe it.

So again, my rejection isn't about convenience. It's about not having faith that the stories are true because they don't pass logical muster.

Logic dictates that anyone who can fulfil hundreds of prophecies written hundreds of years before their birth including when they would be born, where they would be born, that they would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that they would die and that they would rise from the dead and then when it happens, that passes the logic test. The Bible was written by the eyewitnesses who were actually there. Had He not really risen from the dead He would have been exposed as a fraud and Christianity would have died out right then. But what actually happened is that there was an explosion of Christianity after the resurrection. That passes the logic test. The dozens of Secular Writings regarding Christ from His day and shortly thereafter pass the logic test.

 

[BobbyLayne]

I believe have first read this more than years ago, when I first believed (I did not grow up in the church - I was the first person in my family to make a decision for Christ).

---

Recently I purchased a book entitled What the Odds Are. It's an A-Z collection of the odds on "everything you ever hoped or feared could happen".

For instance, did you know that the odds of your being injured by a lightning strike on any given day are only 1 in 250 million, but over the average lifetime are 1 in 9,100? In contrast, the odds that the average citizen of Washington, D.C. will get "plugged, stabbed, poisoned, or bludgeoned to death" in the course of a year are only 1 in 1,681!

One in 10 Americans read the Bible daily. One in two eat out somewhere every single day of the week--1 in 20 at McDonald's. In Sweden, 40 of every one hundred persons are senior citizens; in Fiji, only 1 in 50. And here's one that really amazed me: 1 in every 24 Americans has membership in the National Geographic Society. I guess it figures, though, because I noticed recently that a staggering 9,975,558 average copies of the National Geographic magazine are printed by the Society every month (including those intended for international distribution).

If you still happen to be unconvinced that the baby born in Bethlehem 2000 years ago was anything more than just an ordinary human baby, let me challenge you with a few of “the odds” in that regard.

1. To begin with, did you know that the Old Testament prophet Micah, writing circa 700 B.C., out of the hundreds and hundreds of cities in the scores and scores of nations in existence all over the world even in those days, designated Bethlehem of Judea as the birthplace of the Messiah (Micah 5:2)?
   
   
2. And that at about the same time, Isaiah (7:14) said that the Christ would be born of a virgin?
   
   
3. Or that a prophecy made in 1012 B.C. specified that the Messiah's hands and feet would eventually be pierced--a clear reference to death by crucifixion--800 years before the Romans ever even instituted crucifixion as a form of capital punishment!
   
   
4. Malachi 3:1, penned in about 425 B.C., specified that the Messiah would be contemporary with the temple in Jerusalem--a temple that was destroyed in 70 A.D. and has never been rebuilt.
   
   
5. Well, if all this impresses you even a little bit, you ought to go compare Zechariah 11:11-13 (written over 500 years before Christ) to Matthew 27:3-10 (written some 25-30 years after Christ). Only coincidence?
   
   
6. A number of years ago, Peter W. Stoner and Robert C. Newman wrote a book entitled Science Speaks. The book was based on the science of probability and vouched for by the American Scientific Affiliation. It set out the odds of any one man in all of history fulfilling even only eight of the 60 major prophecies (and 270 ramifications) fulfilled by the life of Christ.
   The probability that Jesus of Nazareth could have fulfilled even eight such prophecies would be only 1 in 1017. That's 1 in 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000.
   
   How much is that?
   
   If you were to cover the entire state of texas with two feet deep of silver dollars, and asked a blind man to find the one silver dollar painted red, the odds would be:
   
   1 in 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000?
   

The fact is, the birth, crucifixion, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ are celebrated worldwide by folk of every race, language, and color, every year. Believing in Jesus, they have been delivered from the most evil, disastrous, frustrating, debilitating habits and life forms possible.

The real problem with Jesus Christ is not that folk can't believe in Him—but that they won't believe in Him.

In all honesty, what are the chances you've not been altogether objective about the nature of the baby born in Bethlehem? What if the baby was God? What if He is God? What if you were to submit your life to Him today?

---

We could do this for years. When I was a young man, I did just that.

But I tell you folks, in all my years of following Jesus, I have never once argued someone into the faith.

It isn't that the Bible isn't reliable. It's not that we cannot show that Jesus Christ was a historical figure. It's not about fulfilled prophecies.

It is simply the desire we all have to live our lives as we see fit, without submitting to the Creator who gave us life. Every one of us - myself, Paddington, the other 8 billion people on the planet - is born with a willful, sinful, disobedient nature. It has been so since Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden of Eden. It separates us from God and from each other.

Everyone has the same human affliction, because God chose to give man free will.

He provided a pathway back to Him. His name is Jesus, and he is the way, the truth and the life. No one can come to Father except through him.

 

[Captain Cranks]

Logic dictates that anyone who can fulfil hundreds of prophecies written hundreds of years before their birth including when they would be born, where they would be born, that they would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver, that they would die and that they would rise from the dead and then when it happens, that passes the logic test. The Bible was written by the eyewitnesses who were actually there. Had He not really risen from the dead He would have been exposed as a fraud and Christianity would have died out right then. But what actually happened is that there was an explosion of Christianity after the resurrection. That passes the logic test. The dozens of Secular Writings regarding Christ from His day and shortly thereafter pass the logic test.

First of all the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses who were actually there.

Regarding the resurrection, does it seem reasonable to you that the Romans would have given who they perceived as a traitor and threat to their rule a proper burial in a tomb? Can you point to any evidence where Romans crucified someone and then brought them down from the cross to be respectfully buried?

 

[dgreen]

What do you mean by "true"? Historically and scientifically accurate? Or something else?

Historically accurate and/or divinely inspired.

Can things that aren’t historically accurate still be valuable and convey truth?

 

[Captain Cranks]

Can things that aren’t historically accurate still be valuable and convey truth?

Absolutely. I don't take exception to anyone gaining insight and value from the Bible, even if it's proved to be inaccurate or myth.

 

[BobbyLayne]

My last post


Isaiah 40:12-31


12 Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand,
or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens?
Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket,
or weighed the mountains on the scales
and the hills in a balance?
13 Who can fathom the Spirit of the Lord,
or instruct the Lord as his counselor?
14 Whom did the Lord consult to enlighten him,
and who taught him the right way?
Who was it that taught him knowledge,
or showed him the path of understanding?

15 Surely the nations are like a drop in a bucket;
they are regarded as dust on the scales;
he weighs the islands as though they were fine dust.
16 Lebanon is not sufficient for altar fires,
nor its animals enough for burnt offerings.
17 Before him all the nations are as nothing;
they are regarded by him as worthless
and less than nothing.

18 With whom, then, will you compare God?
To what image will you liken him?
19 As for an idol, a metalworker casts it,
and a goldsmith overlays it with gold
and fashions silver chains for it.
20 A person too poor to present such an offering
selects wood that will not rot;
they look for a skilled worker
to set up an idol that will not topple.

21 Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
Has it not been told you from the beginning?
Have you not understood since the earth was founded?
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
23 He brings princes to naught
and reduces the rulers of this world to nothing.
24 No sooner are they planted,
no sooner are they sown,
no sooner do they take root in the ground,
than he blows on them and they wither,
and a whirlwind sweeps them away like chaff.

25 “To whom will you compare me?
Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.
26 Lift up your eyes and look to the heavens:
Who created all these?
He who brings out the starry host one by one
and calls forth each of them by name.
Because of his great power and mighty strength,
not one of them is missing.

27 Why do you complain, Jacob?
Why do you say, Israel,
“My way is hidden from the Lord;
my cause is disregarded by my God”?
28 Do you not know?
Have you not heard?
The Lord is the everlasting God,
the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He will not grow tired or weary,
and his understanding no one can fathom.
29 He gives strength to the weary
and increases the power of the weak.
30 Even youths grow tired and weary,
and young men stumble and fall;
31 but those who hope in the Lord
will renew their strength.
They will soar on wings like eagles;
they will run and not grow weary,
they will walk and not be faint. (NIV)

 

[dgreen]

Can things that aren’t historically accurate still be valuable and convey truth?

Absolutely. I don't take exception to anyone gaining insight and value from the Bible, even if it's proved to be inaccurate or myth.

But you’re saying you don’t gain insight and value because of its historic inaccuracy and mythic nature?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Matthew couldn't have lied about where He was born, when He was born, betrayed for 30 pieces of silver and over 100 more details about Christ. The Historians from Christ's day would have exposed Matthew as a fraud, but not a single person refuted not only Matthew's writings, but any other Scripture.

Can you show me the texts that will likely survive 2000 years that challenge L. Ron Hubbard's historical claims? Or the texts from 100 years ago that were dismissive of Mormon's history? etc., etc.

 

[Captain Cranks]

But you’re saying you don’t gain insight and value because of its historic inaccuracy and mythic nature?

No. Apologies if I've made it sound that way. I could certainly derive value from religious texts even if I believe they're mythical in the same way I can derive value from a message of any fictional stories. I've watched countless fictional movies that left me thinking "I should do XYZ more". We don't need stories centered around a deity to promote behavior that's good for us or society as a whole. If you believe the Bible is non-fiction, great. Just have some humility because that's just an opinion rather than some truth the rest of us need to arrive at (not speaking to you specifically).

 

[massraider]

There has never been an archaeological find that has disproven the Bible

Is that the way it works?

No archeological finds that disprove the entire Bible, I suppose that's true

 

[dkp993]

There has never been an archaeological find that has disproven the Bible

Is that the way it works?

No archeological finds that disprove the entire Bible, I suppose that's true

While I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar doesn’t the Bible say the earth (and universe) are roughly 6000 years old? And wouldn’t there be archaeological proof of a world wide flood? Or DNA proof that each and every species can be traced back to 2 single parents from said flood time?

 

[dgreen]

There has never been an archaeological find that has disproven the Bible

Is that the way it works?

No archeological finds that disprove the entire Bible, I suppose that's true

While I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar doesn’t the Bible say the earth (and universe) are roughly 6000 years old? And wouldn’t there be archaeological proof of a world wide flood? Or DNA proof that each and every species can be traced back to 2 single parents from said flood time?

Differences in interpretation tend to be because of disagreements on the genre of literature. Those who read Genesis 1-11 as literal historical narrative will interpret the Bible as saying the age of the Earth is 6000 years old. If someone sees a different genre, then they’ll reach a different conclusion about what the Bible is saying.

 

[dkp993]

There has never been an archaeological find that has disproven the Bible

Is that the way it works?

No archeological finds that disprove the entire Bible, I suppose that's true

While I don’t claim to be a biblical scholar doesn’t the Bible say the earth (and universe) are roughly 6000 years old? And wouldn’t there be archaeological proof of a world wide flood? Or DNA proof that each and every species can be traced back to 2 single parents from said flood time?

Differences in interpretation tend to be because of disagreements on the genre of literature. Those who read Genesis 1-11 as literal historical narrative will interpret the Bible as saying the age of the Earth is 6000 years old. If someone sees a different genre, then they’ll reach a different conclusion about what the Bible is saying.

Thanks D. I fully understand this, I guess I wasn’t as clear as I could have been. My question was more directed to literalist like Paddington.