vagrant

This sentence is a lie.

Pomp

Congratulations, devnet, you've rescued this thread from the Humor forum.

Kenny

My next post is absolutely false

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: Kenny ]</p>

Kenny

What my previous post asserted is the absolute truth.

E_muse

Your arguement is very black and white. You're saying that either the Bible is entirely inspired by God.. and says so or none of it is from God.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that 'the Bible' is the word of God. The reason is simple. At the time of writing, 'the Bible' did not exist.

The writings found in the Bible are simply a collection of 'books' which over the years were found to have authority within the Church.

What people often refer to is probably found in 2 Timothy 3:16 where Paul says that 'all scripture is God breathed' or sometimes 'all scripture is given by inspiration of God', depending upon how it is translated.

However, it is important to note something here. Paul is refering to the scripture as he knew it. Certainly, that would have only included the Old Testament. He cannot be referring to any of the Gospels which he probably never read, or his own writings.

However, Paul's writings - along with other writings did come to be viewed as divinely inspired. However, something else needs to be borne in mind here.

In 1 Corinthians 13 Paul states that, "we know in part and we prophecy in part."

What is interesting is that he writes this:

a) As a writer of scripture himself.
b) As a man in possession of the Old Testament.

What Paul seems to be saying is that we receive something from God (prophecy) but that we can only do this 'in part'. In other words, scripture is a mixture of divinely inspired brilliance combined with human ignorance. In other words we should expect to find both.

The test of a prophet (according to the Bible) is whether or not what he says actually happens. And so a word is judged to be from God, or not, when measured against experience and what actually happens. Does the prophet make accurate predictions? Of course, this could take years.

Just wondering why this isn't in the Biblical criticism section?

E_muse

There is a slight problem with this in that conclusions that are based on circular reasoning are not by default false.

For example, say I buy a novel called "The White Horse" that is based on a true story. On the front cover are the words, "Based on a true story".

I excitedly show my new aquisition to a friend saying, "I've just bought this new book. It's based on a true story." They ask me, "How do you know that it's based on a true story?", to which I reply, "Because it says so in the book!"

Now this is a perfect example of circular reasoning:

1. This book is based on a true story.
2. How do you know?
3. Because it says so in the book.

However, the fact that my reasoning is flawed cannot be used as the basis for the conclusion that the book is therefore not based on a true story. In fact, the story could well be based on a true story.

Even though my reasoning is flawed my conclusion may still be correct, albeit unreliable and not the basis for a firm conclusion.

Another example is:

"I like chocolate ice-cream best because it is my favourite."

However, you would never conclude from this that I don't like chocolate ice-cream simply because my reasoning is circular!

The conclusions of circular reasoning are unreliable and require further testing - they cannot be assumed to be false because they are based on circular reasoning though.

hinduwoman

Oh yeah? How do you know that when the Bible or quoran was written, these natural facts were not true?

Read Terry Prachett's "Strata" if you do not believe me.

E_muse

I would hold to the idea regarding the uniformity of nature - this is even why miracles in the Bible are considered miracles (or signs and wonders to be more precise) and not natural occurences.

For example, those who wrote sections of the Bible knew that it was not natural for people to come back from the dead. If it were considered natural (at the time) for such an occurence to occur then the claims would not have been considered extrordinary.

The Gospels seem to state that the disciples didn't believe that Jesus was back from the dead. If such occurences were considered 'natural facts' then the inclusion of the disciples unbelief wouldn't seem to fit.

Attempting to argue that unusual occurences detailed in the Bible were 'natural facts' at the time wouldn't explain why the writers considered them extrordinary and which is why they eventually wrote them down.

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p>

emotional

Oh yes, the earth must have been flat in the past and then rolled up into a ball, and the sky must have been a solid roof in the past, which God subsequently vaporized so that humans wouldn't have trouble sending rockets to outer space... all attempts to reconcile "revelation" (holy scripture) with natural fact either portray God as the ultimate deceiver (Omphalos, the "appearance of age" argument, is the best example) or stretch the meanings of the words until they can have any meaning (so sheshet yamim in Hebrew can suddenly mean not just "six days" but "six million years" and what have you.

No wonder most liberal theists of our times try to evade the issue by saying such things as "the Bible is not to be read as a book of science". But once the authority of the Bible as to natural fact ("earthly things") is weakened, its authority as to metaphysics ("heavenly things") is also put to question. And the deity the Bible and Qur'an teach is indeed a fiction.

As for miracles, I discount them a priori for the following reason: the Bible and Qur'an (and books of the like) are books of propaganda. The appearance of miracles in them is just as expected as the appearance of spectacular stunts in films: just as films use stunts to make people excited and watch more and ultimately pay, so do those scriptures use miracles to make people acknowledge how all-powerful God is and read more and ultimately obey. Accounts of miracles are of no consequence. What matters is whether the scripture in question describes things correctly. Hares chewing the cud (in the Bible) and the sun sinking literally into a muddy spring (in the Qur'an) aren't what I expect to read from the one who's supposed to be in charge of this whole affair.

E_muse

Unfortunately such an attitude halts the possibility of investigation. Even if there is only an element of truth in such stories, we are prevented from discovering more about what has really happened by rejecting them out of hand.

Also, not all miracle claims are found in the Bible and are not only claimed by those perpetrating a propaganda plot.

As for the rest .. as stated above, I think it belongs in the Biblical Criticism and Archaeology forum.