jpbrooks

Ok. I really don't have time for this, but since I am a "resident" Christian here, I'll bite.

To claim that it is possible that the biblical Satan wrote the bible assumes that it is possible that the bible contains the truth about Satan.

But if it is possible that Satan (as described by the bible) is the author of the bible, there would be no good reason to believe that any information that the bible contains is reliable, including information about Satan himself.

Thus the claim that Satanic authorship of the bible is a possibility, is itself, a claim that can only be made on faith.

Furthermore, (again assuming the biblical Satan), what would be Satan's motivation for writing the bible? (An appeal to pity perhaps?) Or perhaps he, like Lewis Carroll, is a puzzler and intended the bible to be enigmatic. But if that's the case, then why assume that Satan is really the evil liar that the bible seems to suggest he is?

I don't really have time to discuss this subject at length, but I just wanted to throw in a comment from the Christian side of the issue.

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

DRFseven

I don't have much time either til after Christmas but I have a comment on this. The idea that a God and Satan exist requires a certain belief system, which, in my opinion, would not allow for a concurrent mental structure of an incompatible belief system. I mean the whole thing is about "God's Word" and God's word does not say that Satan wrote the Bible.

DarkBronzePlant

I posted the same question here:
<a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=22&t=001126" target="_blank">Satan Wrote the Bible</a>
a few weeks ago. Hardly any defenses from Christians, and one good post from Cantankerous Cantanktion arguing that it would be much more likely that Satan wrote the bible.

But anyway, to throw my 2 bits into this thread, I will now repost jpbrooks' post, with my own substitutions in bold.

jpbrooks

jpbrooks wrote:

Fair enough. But my argument was specifically directed against Satanic authorship of the bible; not against the more general, (and IMO, the more skeptical) claim that God may not be the author of the bible. Even if Satan is not (or cannot be) the author of the bible, this does not automatically establish that God is its author. The paraphrasing of my argument above simply highlights the main issue in skepticism about the bible. But a discussion of that issue would be outside the scope of the present topic.

In any case, I have to run. I'll be back later (hopefully).

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

Mageth

An interesting discussion, but of course (as is obvious) a collection of men (and women?) wrote the books of the bible. Another collection of men decided which books were to be included in the bible as we see it today. Assuming there is a god and satan, the question would be better phrased, "Who INSPIRED the books of the bible?" Is it possible under this scenario that both satan and god inspired different portions of the bible? For example, god inspired the OT, and satan the NT?

DarkBronzePlant

A good point. Perhaps I should have clarified my position, which is this: I'll admit that it's possible that god-as-described-in-the-bible actually wrote (or inspired, I'lluse the words interchangable) the bible. But it is equally likely that Satan, or some equally malicious being, wrote the bible.

bd-from-kg

jpbrooks:

Your logical powers don’t seem to have improved since the last time we met.

How does it assume this? And what relevance does this have to the original question?

So what? We’re assuming that someone claims that Satan wrote the Bible; you point out only that this claim cannot logically be based on the argument “the Bible says so”. But the Bible doesn’t say so anyway, so this argument isn’t available; in any case it would be transparently circular. On the other hand, there’s nothing in the Bible to suggest that Satan wouldn’t be capable of writing a fake “holy book” to lead people astray, and much to suggest that he might do such a thing. He might well have chosen to depict himself accurately (as a little joke, perhaps).

Finally, no one is claiming to have positive evidence that Satan actually wrote the Bible; we’re discussing whether you can rule out this possibility with reasonable confidence.

Why? The claim that something is possible can be based merely on the observation that there is no convincing evidence to the contrary. Where does “faith” come into it?

An astounding argument for a Christian to make. The standard Christian answer to “Why would God do that?” is “Who are you to question God?” or “The ways of the Lord are mysterious”. The motivations and purposes of supernatural beings would seem to be beyond our ken.

In any case, there are obvious possible motives. For example, it may be that God is inclined to allow everyone into Heaven with a few exceptions such as those who blaspheme Him beyond endurance by worshiping a man and calling Him God. The Bible could be one of Satan’s tricky ways of leading billions of people down this garden path and into his hands.

Why indeed? But in that case he wouldn’t be “Satan” as Christians use the term, so let’s stick with the original intent of the OP and consider only the question of how you can be reasonably sure that the Bible wasn’t written by the evil liar that Christians have in mind when they refer to “Satan”.

jpbrooks

Sorry for my delay in reponding.

DarkBronzePlant wrote:

But it is equally likely that Satan, or some equally malicious being, wrote the bible.

jpbrooks:

I'm not sure if it would be equally likely if no evidence to support the biblical Satan's existence were available. If that is the case, it would be more likely that the bible were written by someone else whose existence had more support.

jpbrooks

bd-from-kg wrote:

Your logical powers don?t seem to have improved since the last time we met.

jpbrooks:

Well, my position certainly hasn't changed.

quote:

To claim that it is possible that the biblical Satan wrote the bible assumes that it is possible that the bible contains the truth about Satan.

bd-from-kg wrote:

How does it assume this? And what relevance does this have to the original question?

jpbrooks:

Huh?
I confess that this question throws me completely!
How is it possible to assume an act of (the biblical) Satan as a possibility without thereby assuming his existence as a possibility?
If an act of Satan is possible, then the existence of Satan, (as he is described by the bible), must also be possible. How could the existence and description of Satan fail to be relevant to questions about his (possible) activities?

quote:

But if it is possible that Satan (as described by the bible) is the author of the bible, there would be no good reason to believe that any information that the bible contains is reliable, including information about Satan himself.

bd-from-kg wrote:

So what? We?re assuming that someone claims that Satan wrote the Bible; you point out only that this claim cannot logically be based on the argument ?the Bible says so?. But the Bible doesn?t say so anyway, so this argument isn?t available; in any case it would be transparently circular.

jpbrooks:

Not exactly.
My argument questions the reliability of the whole book under the possible authorship of Satan which includes everything that the bible does say about Satan. If the very description (and existence) of the biblical Satan is in question, due to the bible's questionable authorship, then any argument that applies to the biblical Satan becomes problematic.

bd-from-kg wrote:

On the other hand, there?s nothing in the Bible to suggest that Satan wouldn?t be capable of writing a fake ?holy book? to lead people astray,

jpbrooks:

"Astray" from whom or what? If the truth of the bible is precisely what is in question, on what basis could Satan's path be deemed "astray"?

And why would Satan's book be a fake one? Why couldn't Satan's path be the true one?

bd-from-kg wrote:

and much to suggest that he might do such a thing. He might well have chosen to depict himself accurately (as a little joke, perhaps).

jpbrooks:

But if there is no way for anyone else to know that Satan is telling the truth about himself (as a joke), why write?

bd-from-kg wrote:

Finally, no one is claiming to have positive evidence that Satan actually wrote the Bible; we?re discussing whether you can rule out this possibility with reasonable confidence.

jpbrooks:

And questions about where the evidence that satan wrote the bible could come from are relevant to whether that possibility can be ruled out.

quote:

Thus the claim that Satanic authorship of the bible is a possibility, is itself, a claim that can only be made on faith.

bd-from-kg wrote:

Why? The claim that something is possible can be based merely on the observation that there is no convincing evidence to the contrary. Where does ?faith? come into it?

jpbrooks:

By "faith", I meant belief without evidence.
My point was that if evidence for the claim is unavailable, the claim could only be made on "faith".

Believing something merely because there is no convincing evidence to the contrary seems strange. There is no convincing evidence to the contrary, for example, for the existence of elves and fairies in solar systems outside of our own. So, (according to your reasoning), there is (therefore), apparently, a basis for believing in their existence.


quote:

Furthermore, (again assuming the biblical Satan), what would be Satan's motivation for writing the bible?

bd-from-kg wrote:

An astounding argument for a Christian to make. The standard Christian answer to ?Why would God do that?? is ?Who are you to question God?? or ?The ways of the Lord are mysterious?. The motivations and purposes of supernatural beings would seem to be beyond our ken.

jpbrooks:

Again, I am puzzled by this kind of comment!
God, Satan, etc., were never meant to be total mysteries. If that were the case, then (from a Christian perspective) the entire bible is a miserable failure in keeping information about the supernatural secret.

bd-from-kg wrote:

In any case, there are obvious possible motives. For example, it may be that God is inclined to allow everyone into Heaven with a few exceptions such as those who blaspheme Him beyond endurance by worshiping a man and calling Him God. The Bible could be one of Satan?s tricky ways of leading billions of people down this garden path and into his hands.

jpbrooks:

That would mean that God is either a "monster" who "saves" people only if they are fortunate enough to figure out how to get "saved", or else offers no (definite) "way" of salvation at all, leaving open the question why a just God would condemn innocent people to the same ultimate fate as those who are not innocent.

quote:

But if that's the case, then why assume that Satan is really the evil liar that the Bible seems to suggest he is?

bd-from-kg wrote:

Why indeed? But in that case he wouldn?t be ?Satan? as Christians use the term, so let?s stick with the original intent of the OP and consider only the question of how you can be reasonably sure that the Bible wasn?t written by the evil liar that Christians have in mind when they refer to ?Satan?.

jpbrooks:

To avoid repeating here what I have already said, I will simply refer you to my comments above.

I don't have time for a long and involved exchange.
My time online is extremely limited. So it may take a long time for me to reply, (if I can reply at all), to your comments.
I'm quite busy trying to make changes in my life that will allow me to spend more time online in the future.

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

Amos

Sorry for my late response Wizardry.

Of course I can agree that the authorship is wrong if the Satan wrote bible. The problem with the question really is that it is impossible for satan to write the bible because only Gods can write inspired bible passages. So in that case satan would be God which is a contradiction in terms.

It is very much true that the works of the author make the author and not the other way around as you suggest. From this follows that we believe the bible not because God wrote it but because of what it says regardless of who wrote it.

We can now get into interpretation and this is where you think I am wrong. You would say that because you do not think that I am able to grasp the true meaning of the bible, and if indeed I would not, you make a good point because things can sure go wrong if we read it wrong. But does this not change the meaning of the words and passages. It only means that I should not be reading it.

Further, it is impossible for satan to write the bible because fallen angels are not inspired and would not be able to write divine comedies. If this was not true the bible would no longer be inspired, or, rather, the word inspired would lose its distinction from ordinary language.

Amos