rhutchin

For context, let's look at more of the passage you cite--

In the account, v9 is part of the decree issued by the king of Ninevah and merely states that which the king said. I see no reason to think that the king could not say something like this.

In v10, we have Jonah's statement to the effect that the destruction foretold in v3 had been reversed and Ninevah was no longer to be destroyed. This is consistent with that which we are told God will do in response to repentance.

I am not sure what point you are making. Can you go into more detail on your thinking here?

rhutchin

I guess we use different sources regarding the author of the Timothy and Titus letters. So, we disagree.

The intended context for "Thus saith the Lord.." is the Bible. Since we seemed to be discussing the application of 2 Timothy to the Bible, it did not seem necesary to me to explain that context. Nonetheless, my earlier comment was restricted to those instances in the Bible where we find the phrase, "Thus saith the Lord..." and would not apply to similar statements that might appear elsewhere.

Wayne Delia

That's exactly my criticism. You're concluding that nothing in the Bible is meaningless or gibberish, because you found a verse - in the Bible - that you seem to interpret as claiming that nothing in the Bible is meaningless or gibberish. That's textbook circular reasoning.

You're basing that on verses which start "Thus saith the Lord..." which is merely a special pleading logical fallacy: God is given the extreme benefit of the doubt that God would never inspire anything meaningless or gibberish, because... well, because God is God, and gets a special exemption.

Paul identifies the source of the Scripture, presumably the Hebrew scripture, although it is not identified, and much of the Gospels had not yet been written. He also says it is useful for teaching and rebuking and other actions. He does not specify that the Scripture he was referring to was necessarily clear, and Jesus is attributed to have been proud of the fact that His parables were unintelligible even to His own disciples.

You really have to stop paraphrasing other people's arguments. You have a frequent habit of adding your own details and omitting key elements to suit your agenda. For example...

There's a general consensus among sacred and secular scholars that the various Scriptures were only attributed to those men, and not actually written by them. The actual authors are anonymous, and in the case of Isaiah (if I remember correctly) there are two distinct anonymous authors involved. There's a Jewish and Christian tradition that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, which cannot be true, because the final book includes details of Moses's death, burial, and uncertain grave location, which would be a curious subject for Moses himself to have written.

I think all implications are implicit. Slow down and re-read what you're writing.

The question is not whether God is inspiring the material written. The actual question is whether anything which is included in the Bible is meaningless or gibberish. If you're claiming it can't be because God inspired it, you're using a special pleading logical fallacy.

So what? Here we have a fallible human man who happens to be a little overenthusiastic with his religion claiming he isn't lying. Obviously, that happens in other religions, too. But this has nothing to do with whether something is meaningless or gibberish.

Some passages in those are easily considered meaningless and gibberish, particularly the point of the Creation and Flood myths.

We could, but that would be pointless, since the question is whether material in the Bible is meaningless or gibberish, rather than whether the material is inspired by God. The only possible line of reasoning you can establish heavily depends on the special pleading logical fallacy - asserting it's not meaningless or gibberish because God inspired it. Giving God a free pass just because He's God is a textbook use of special pleading.

The contradiction (and subsequent amusement) arises from you using a verse in the Bible to back up the claim that nothing in the Bible is meaningless or gibberish. Paul's letter makes an essential claim that everything in the Bible is God-inspired, which does not address the comprehensibility of the Bible unless you're shooting for a whopper of a special pleading logical fallacy.

And there you have it - you've presupposed the truth of what you have presented as support for your claim to others who do not share the same presuppositions. Essentially, you've assumed your conclusion, and you can't understand why those who do not assume your conclusion are laughing at you. I hope this helps to explain why that is happening.

WMD

Julian

Yes, we disagree. You also disagree with any scholar I can think of. What reputable scholars can you mention who believe that the pastorals were written by Paul?
And therein lies my problem. Why the distinction? What would the distinction have been before the formation of the canon, where you would have had to deal with 20 or so gospels? How do you know what is revelation by god and what isn't? When you answer this bear in mind that the bible didn't look the same back then as it does today, as specified in the previous sentence.

Julian

Wayne Delia

Can you show your "different sources" which assert that Paul is the actual author of the pastoral letters to Timothy and Titus? I am aware that the consensus is that Paul didn't write those two epistles, and that your "different source" could be a fundy website which claims and insists that all books of the Bible are written by the attributed authors, period, no reasoning other than blind dogma.

Thus, it would be extremely embarrassing if your reference to a statement, included in the Bible, that the Bible is God-inspired and necessarily true and profitable for whatever, turns out to be written by somebody other than Paul.

You're completely missing the point. You brought up 2 Timothy as support for your claim that nothing in the Bible is meaningless or gibberish. Since 2 Timothy is included in the Bible, that resulted in a very amusing example of circular reasoning and special pleading.

Here's an example of why it doesn't work: Consider "Wayne's Bible," which consists of one book, one chapter, and three verses.

Book 1.
Chapter 1.
Verse 1. God inspired every verse in this book.
Verse 2. All of this Scripture is true, meaningful, and non-gibberish.
Verse 3. Blah blah blah blah garblefrazzle snockerwiggle blah blah blah.

Would you agree, then, based on your own line of reasoning, that Verse 3 makes sense, and that nothing in "Wayne's Bible" is meaningless or gibberish? I'd really be interested in your answer.

And "Thus saith the Lord..." adds what kind of authority to any particular statement? Remember, few if any of the people you are discussing this with share your presuppositions that 1) the Lord never lies, 2) the attributed authors actually wrote the Scriptures, 3) the anonymous authors were actually telling the truth.

WMD

John A. Broussard

How do you know these passages are not just meaningless gibberish?

I'm looking forward to your explanation.

Thank you.

Sheshbazzar

In as much as the most arcane Scriptural writings are effective in provoking discussions, disputations, and in polarizing the opinions of the believers and the non believers, whether being regarded as meaningless gibberish, or as the inspired Word of Life, these sayings effectively.... 'cause to be'... that division that has from the beginning divided mankind.
Many things remain unknown and yet undiscovered, what today may be judged in ignorance as being meaningless gibberish, may tomorrow be revealed to be an important clue integral to perfect understanding.

rhutchin

1. Eusebius Tertullian, and the early church fathers
Charles Ryrie
John A.T. Robinson


Prior to the formation of the cannon, I suspect that it may have been difficult for those outside the church to identify that which was inspired (i.e., authored by the apostles or Paul (or by those closely associated with them)). I suspect that those within the church were careful to distinguish those works that were inspired, to preserve them, and to use them to instruct the church. From what little I have read from, and of, the early church fathers, certain writings were held in esteem over others. This influenced the formation of the canon. So, I will go with tradition on this issue.

Helpmabob

May I try to answer with yet another Bible quote: "Taste and see that the Lord is good" [Psalms 34:8:] It has to be 'tasted and seen' that God and His word is good.

Julian

:rolling: Too funny!

Julian