Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is almost the "What is truth?" question. As referenced in my #27 post, there is an enormous amount of verifiable, empirical evidence to support almost every book of the Bible. This is not simply a broad, unsupported claim, but, verifiable proof!
I see you are advertising the website for your book, sales must be down, or never really picked up?
You don't think God is inherently responsible for the content in the Bible?
That is badly phrased, and the adverb "inherently" is both misused and misplaced. It would be more accurate to say that since the divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, God is therefore the author of Sacred Scripture. Note that the word "author" is being used here in its full and original sense of "source" or "creator", and not the narrow and later sense of "writer."
Nevertheless, this does not answer the question how the unconnected books created over centuries were identified as inspired, and selected to be included into something which would be called "the Bible." How do you think that happened?
That is badly phrased, and the adverb "inherently" is both misused and misplaced. It would be more accurate to say that since the divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, God is therefore the author of Sacred Scripture. Note that the word "author" is being used here in its full and original sense of "source" or "creator", and not the narrow and later sense of "writer."
Nevertheless, this does not answer the question how the unconnected books created over centuries were identified as inspired, and selected to be included into something which would be called "the Bible." How do you think that happened?
Is this what you were thinking about when you objected to me using the term "self-referencing" when I described why I know the bible is divinely inspired? I can see you have a burden for truth. I was not talking about the formation of the canon, though.
I was talking about when the narrative prophetically introduces events which will occur later. It is the narrative which does it, not some closer attention to detail, like exact wording. When the narrative does that, it can get help from details. There can be interesting stuff that conforms to the idea being put forth, but I don't think we are supposed to rely upon that. The narrative, in other words, assures that even a word of mouth passing on of what has been said is enough to contain the kernel that is being passed!
In the case of the Elijah story, it is simply what will happen during the ministry of Jesus and into the formation of the Church. Everything that happened to Elijah and Elisha also happened to the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit did something that was symbolized by the actions of the prophets. This isn't the place to get into that, but is the place to try and understand the meta aspects of it, so to speak.
There are similar things to this sort of narrative, ways that the narratives as they are all spread out in the different books, all define certain things the same way that also infer some sort of self-referencing.
Once you discover, in the Elijah narrative for instance, that Ahab having a wife is a clever way of symbolically referring to the people, who are the king, being tied to the Sanhedrin, who are the religion. So, we see that, in these narratives, the wife is a symbol for religion.
Similarly, you can begin to pick up on the way God thinks about the political formations of man, that he would, indeed, use the king to symbolize them. When you see how it works out for Peter, on the day of Pentecost, as he speaks to the crowds, you realize that it is Elijah speaking to Ahab, and, thus, God telling us something about His understanding of, eventually, democracy.
It's kind of special because it says something about how the love of God doesn't actually miss those sorts of things. And He can reach out to the world at large. He isn't confined to that small world of so many thousand years ago, with it's petty tyrants and minor kings. The message was always larger than that, even though it was given to men who could not think any larger than that.
There is more. It isn't just the narratives which do this. There is numerical repetition, which underlines certain teachings. And, then, there is kind of the holy grail, which is the story behind the story. OP didn't actually ask about that when she was bringing her initial question. It's there, though. Some say there are actually at least two stories within the story.
What I mean by that is the kind of thing you can really only readily see under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I'm, of course, not sure if I should try to explain it. I sort of have to, however, because to do otherwise is to offer no experiential proof of something I am saying contains that sort of truth. Since this argument is not entirely a rational one, that wouldn't address its validity.
Ok, to take a big Universalist size risk, I will give an example. When Jesus was asked about marriage, He said how much the Lord hates divorce. The people said to Him that Moses wasn't as hard on them as He was. He didn't want them to divorce. Moses allowed it. Jesus didn't, except in the case that your spouse had committed adultery. Aha, that means something. Not just the adultery thing, but the fact it was put that way. I think Jesus was talking about something other than marriage. I think He was talking to the world at large about where they find themselves in relationship to God, in whatever religion they find themselves born into. If it isn't any good, if it doesn't give you anything, but only takes, it's ok to leave it. Otherwise, God was the spark for whatever truth it contains. He is appealing to all people in the way where He shows them as much of Himself as He can.
What is actually being said in those verses is what the ancient Hebrews believed, namely that the earth is flat and rests on pillars. The Bible reflects the ancient cosmology of the ancient Near East.
I gather you do not agree with 2 Tim 3:16, is this correct Michael?
Ha, I've seen that painting of Jesus whispering into the ear of St. Matthew, so some people do believe that.
Many people also believe that "God helps those who help themselves", or that people get their wings and become angels when they die.
But common popular belief has nothing to do with actual doctrine.
Quote:
But yes, I do know that most people don't consider it literally dictated.
The use of the word was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but still, the idea exists that divine inspiration means that it was written as God wanted it written and that therefore it cannot be wrong.
Scripture was called "God-breathed". So yes, it is what God wanted.
Quote:
I don't agree with that. It is inspired by the faith and beliefs and perspectives of the authors, perhaps, but that doesn't mean that it is infallible. Nothing humans do is.
Your belief has as much basis in Scripture as the 2 things I mentioned above. You want to believe that, great, so be it. But it's not what the doctrine has historically meant, or been taught as for 2000 years.
Quote:
This does not mean it has no value. There's an oddity in these conversations, which is not surprising considering a lot of the black-and-white/good vs. evil thinking, that if one does not believe it is literally divinely inspired, why they must be discarding Scripture all together.
It's simply untrue and kind of a sleazy accusation to make against non-fundamentalist Christians.
The issue is that if we believe that God did not Inspire it, or that it's not "God breathed", then we have people simply dismissing the parts they don't like, as so often happens on this forum.
Many people also believe that "God helps those who help themselves", or that people get their wings and become angels when they die.
But common popular belief has nothing to do with actual doctrine.
Scripture was called "God-breathed". So yes, it is what God wanted.
Your belief has as much basis in Scripture as the 2 things I mentioned above. You want to believe that, great, so be it. But it's not what the doctrine has historically meant, or been taught as for 2000 years.
The issue is that if we believe that God did not Inspire it, or that it's not "God breathed", then we have people simply dismissing the parts they don't like, as so often happens on this forum.
It gets tiresome that you keep claiming that when it's not true. Nobody I know "simply dismisses the parts they don't like". There is something to be learned from most of the Bible in a Christian study session or a sermon based on the day's readings, regardless of whether or not one believes it's literally "God's words" or not. Do you think our non-fundamentalist priests actually get up there and say, "we're going to disregard this part of today's lectionary because we don't like it"? See how silly that sounds?
Again, I will point out your consistent black/white, either/or thinking. Just because someone doesn't believe God actually directed that something be written doesn't mean it's dismissed. Don't you see ANY in-between areas anywhere? That way of thinking is extremely limiting, BF.
Also, "God-breathed" is but one interpretation of what the word translated as inspiration means, and while what you assume the term means or choose to believe it means is one thing, not every Christian agrees that it's what BF thinks it is
And stop saying this or that is what has been historically taught. It's not necessarily true. Christian history is far richer and more involved than what you appear to know.
It gets tiresome that you keep claiming that when it's not true.
There's a certain mystic that posts here regularly that makes a habit of telling us that the parts he disagrees with are primitive and barbaric. And he only believes the parts that agree with his understanding. So..well....sure, whatever.
Quote:
Also, "God-breathed" is but one interpretation of what the word translated as inspiration means, and while what you assume the term means or choose to believe it means is one thing, not every Christian agrees that it's what BF thinks it is
And stop saying this or that is what has been historically taught. It's not necessarily true. Christian history is far richer and more involved than what you appear to know.
The koine Greek word "θεόπνευστος", which Paul wrote in 2 Tim 3:16 literally translates as "God-breathed".
The apostles taught it. And since then it has been taught. That's history.
I gather you do not agree with 2 Tim 3:16, is this correct Michael?
No. That is not correct.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
