bd-from-kg

Laurentius:

Your missionary friend at least understands the question that pug846 intended to raise, and probably gave (in outline form) about the best answer possible from a Christian perspective. Unfortunately (from his standpoint) it is hopelessly inadequate, to the point of being laughable.

There are lots of ways for mere mortals to “predict” historical events. The Bible uses all of them.

(1) Write the “prediction” after the fact.
(2) Reinterpret the “prediction” after the fact to refer to an event it was obviously not intended to refer to originally.
(3) Predict something any idiot can see is highly probable before the fact.
(4) Make the “prediction” so vague that any number of events could qualify as a “fulfillment”.

In spite of using all of these techniques, the Bible still misfires many times by “predicting” events that never happened.

One might also note that the original question was not how one could tell that the Bible was not written by mere mortals, but how one could tell that it was not written by a (hypothetical) malevolent, mendacious being who might be immortal and have superhuman powers and knowledge.

Correction: It describes alleged wonders allegedly witnessed by many people.

This would be a good argument if the Bible were such a superior work as to constitute prima facie evidence that its author must be greater than Satan. Unfortunately, for the work of a superior being it bears a remarkable resemblance to the work of a tribe of primitive, superstitious barbarians. A better argument for Satan’s not being the author is that he could easily have produced a work that could more plausibly be passed off as the Word of God.

No doubt this accounts for the absence of competing religions.

Here, of course, your missionary friend is taking it for granted that the Bible is true, presumably on the grounds that it’s the Word of God. This pretty much rules out the possibility that it was written by Satan.

As you point out, from within the Christian worldview it is simply inconceivable that Satan wrote the Bible, while from the standpoint of the skeptic it is more or less inconceivable that Satan even exists. Thus, if pug846’s original question is to be taken seriously, we need to follow his lead and interpret it in a way that raises serious epistemological issues. The existence of Satan isn’t an epistemological issue, but an ontological one. So presumably the point of the question is: how can one tell whether a work allegedly written by the omniscient, omnipotent ruler of the universe was really produced by Him, or by some other being – perhaps even a thoroughly malevolent, mendacious being such as the “Satan” who appears in the Bible? At least your missionary friend is giving this question his best shot, whereas jpbrooks seems to have missed the point entirely.

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: bd-from-kg ]</p>

pug846

Lets also not forget that “Satan” can certainly be some sort of supernatural being with more than human abilities. I see no problem with "Satan" predicting future events and not being a God.

RyanS2

Now the Zoroastrians cry, "Blasphemy"!! (Does anyone actually know one?) In their end battle, Ahura Mazda beats Ahriman because Ahura Mazda knows the future, Ahriman can only know about the past. How about if God is so all-encomposing that he is everything, heaven, hell, good, evil, and the Devil? Of course, I remember reading one post on a messageboard saying something to the effect of: "It's an affront to Satan to credit him with something as horrible in literature as the Bible." But if God/Satan are from the same forces, the same lineage, what's to say that God isn't Satan? Of course, I thought the definition of a supernatural being was that they didn't have presense here in the mundane World, (of course, that brings Jesus into the debate, since he's supposed to be God as man), but on a purely spiritual level, does Satan ever take human form in the Bible? I remember Justin Martyr's writings had several times stated that the pagan myths which were similar to the story of Jesus were the products of Satan. What if Martyr got it wrong?

Laurentius

AVE

Posted by bd-from-kg:
All right, then. At least we have established that the question needs to be reformulated. Moreover, it will not be the Christian that is to answer it, because he/she a priori considers the Bible true, God existent, etc. In fact, I mentioned in my original post that the missionary had made it clear that he could only speak about God and Satan as they were presented by the Holy Bible (which therefore had to be held true).

The question having been reformulated, the situation changes dramatically because it presents a highly hypothetical situation. We have a hypothetically divine book that has hypothetically been written by a hypothetical supreme divinity, and now we wonder what if, providing the hypothetically divine book has not actually been written by humans, the hypothetical enemy himself of the hypothetical supreme divinity has hypothetically written the hypothetical divine book after all? Could this be? Anything could be under these highly hypothetical circumstances. There are so many “ifs” and “maybes” that anything can be speculated.

bd-from-kg

Laurentius:

Well, yes. That’s the point.

The only reason that this book is still of any interest to anyone but a few scholars is that it is believed by a great many people that it was inspired by God. The question being asked is really what evidence there is for this claim. The total lack of such evidence is brought out vividly by pointing out that there is not even a shred of evidence, either internal or external, that it was not written (or “inspired&#8221 ) by an evil being with malicious intent, much less that it was written by God.

The fact that no possibility can be ruled out - not even the possibility that it was produced by a monster rather than a benevolent deity - points up dramatically the absurdity of treating this book with special reverence, to the point of reading passages from it daily for “inspiration”. It is also strong positive evidence that it was not inspired by God. What kind of idiotic Deity would go to the trouble of producing a special “sacred work” and neglect to provide any evidence that He had anything to do with its creation? Making it appear to be the work of a tribe of primitive cutthroats seems especially perverse in this regard.

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: bd-from-kg ]</p>

jpbrooks

jpbrooks:

I inadvertently overlooked this thread because I have more important things to attend to.

The quote above amounts to nothing more than a rant. Why should bible believers hold bd-from-kg's pronouncements about evidence of biblical authorship as having any authority? My claim is that neither is there any credible evidence to support the claim that Satan wrote the bible. Fine! I have no desire to play authority games and refuse to waste my time ranting about how absurd it is, for example, to assume that Satan would be a more competent author of the bible than God.
I understand entirely the underlying issue regarding biblical authorship. And as I pointed out a few posts ago, my intention in this thread was to respond specifically to the question of Satanic biblical authorship. I have already done so. Without adequate reason, to believe that Satan even exists, the question is pointless.
As for whether some other, possibly malicious, supernatural entity, may have written or "inspired" the bible, the onus is on the proponent of this view to provide support for it. I would again request reasons 1) for believing that such a being exists in the real world and 2) given that such a being does exist in the real world, why "she", "he", or "it" would even bother to write or "inspire" the bible.
Given that I have already asked these kinds of questions in earlier posts and have obtained inadequate responses, I see no reason to continue to waste my time repeating my replies on this topic. Please consider my replies to any further examples, rebuttals, etc. in this thread, to be the answers that I have already provided.

[ January 06, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

bd-from-kg

jpbrooks:

They shouldn’t. Feel free to present any actual evidence that you have regarding the authorship (or divine inspiration) of the Bible. Evidence regarding the books of the Old Testament would be of particular interest. If God didn’t inspire the OT, He didn’t inspire the NT either.

Neither?? Are you saying that there is neither credible evidence that the Bible was written by Satan nor that it was inspired by God? If not, what are you saying?

We’re not really talking about authorship (which will probably never be known); we’re talking about how it came to exist. Was it the product of a divine (or diabolical) plan, or did it just grow like Topsy until it (quite accidentally, without plan or purpose) came to be in its present form? Is this really not worth discussing? How can you justify arranging your life around it if you have no idea what it is? Actually this thread sets the bar very low. You are only being asked to provide evidence that it was not produced by a malevolent entity. Internal evidence is perfectly acceptable.

As a Christian you’re asking us to center our entire lives around the Bible. Why is the onus on us to prove anything about its origin? It seems to me that the onus is on you. If you can’t even show that it wasn’t produced by a malevolent being, it’s ludicrous to expect anyone to stake his eternal soul on the truth of what it says. It’s ludicrous for you to do so.

Anyway, let’s look at this question in another way. Let’s assume that the Bible really was written, or inspired, or whatever, by the being that the ancient Hebrews called “Yahweh” or “Jehovah”. What evidence can you offer that this “Yahweh” is in fact a benevolent deity rather than a malicious liar? Perhaps Yahweh’s real character is very close to that of “Satan” (as depicted in the Bible). It can be argued that there are quite a few passages in the OT that to support this idea, and that the entire NT does as well. Can you offer any reason to think this implausible?

jpbrooks

I agree. There is no reason at all why bible believers should consider your proposals about God's allegedly "flawed" moral character, His alleged "failure" to provide evidence, or His alleged "incompetence" in inspiring the bible to carry ultimate authority.

Thank you.
For starters, the following passages from the OT point out that God is a truth teller:

2 Samuel 7:2, Psalm 119:142,160, Proverbs 30:5-6, and Deuteronomy 32:4, in addition to passages from the NT regarding this and the claim that God wrote the bible, (e.g., 2 Timothy 3:16).

Neither. I was merely presenting my opinion about the bible as being an alternative to yours, without arguing for it, in order to emphasize the pointlessness of merely asserting alternatives on ones own authority when there is no reason to hold one's views as authoritative.

What is "Topsy"?
In any case, didn't we discuss this issue already in another thread?
If the bible is a product of accident, how can it be a "diabolical" creation?
Furthermore, even on the assumption that it could be a "diabolical" creation, how could it have been inspired by God? By whose moral standard is God being judged "diabolical" and why should we hold that standard as absolute?

Yes, but as I stated earlier in this thread, the issues that you are dredging up again about God being diabolical, have already been addressed and are outside the scope of this topic, which (again) concerns Satan; not God. And as I pointed out before, I have no intention of repeating answers that I have already provided on that issue in this thread.

You lost me here. Are you saying that we have no knowledge at all about the bible?
If we have no idea at all what it is, how can we argue about it?
If you mean merely that we don't have complete knowledge about it, then I don't see how the bible would be any different than other things, (like science, for example) that we "arrange" our lives around.

Again, I'm puzzled by this question. The bible clearly suggests that God and the "malevolent entity" that it refers to as "Satan" are two different entities.

Absolutely not! I don't care what you believe. To be more precise, it certainly wouldn't displease me if you, at some time in the future after reflecting on the issue, converted to Christianity and became a bible believer. But that would be solely your choice. It is not my "duty" to convert you or anyone else to my beliefs.That is one reason why this kind of thread holds such a low priority for me.
You seem to be more interested in proselytizing for your stance than I am. This is evidenced by your persistence in dredging up questions about the "diabolical" authorship of the bible.

You are the one who is offering an alternative theory about the bible's origin. It certainly isn't up to the bible believer to support your theory. Bible believers, unlike you, accept the account of the bible that we already have.

But I, unlike you, don't expect anyone to stake his or her "eternal soul" on the truth of what I say.

If the bible's central claims are of questionable truth, then why would my "eternal soul" be at stake? I certainly don't feel like I'm missing any enjoyment in this life. And if there is no afterlife, I won't be there to regret missing anything here anyway. So, in what way am "risking" anything?

Furthermore, why are you so concerned about what I believe? If my beliefs are erroneous, then why not just leave me to suffer any consequences that might occur as a result of holding them? Why all the zeal to "convert" me away from my beliefs?

As I stated earlier, the bible points out that God, unlike Satan, is not a malicious liar. If the bible's claims cannot be trusted, then such questions are not only unanswerable, they are pointless.

Again, I seem to be repeating earlier comments. So, I'm finished with this topic.
I would be pleased to discuss the bible at a later time when you can come up with new questions.

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

bd-from-kg

jpbrooks:

Since you obviously have no intention of offering any real argument to support the proposition that the Bible was not brought into existence by a malevolent entity, and appear to have no idea of how to make such an argument even if you wanted to, I agree that there is little point in continuing the discussion. So I’ll limit myself to a few final comments.

1. Trying to show that the Bible is true, or that it was inspired by God, or that God is benevolent rather than malicious, by quoting from the Bible, is hilarious. Thanks for the comic relief.

2. Christianity is notoriously a proselytizing religion. Christians are commanded by Christ to spread the Good News to all nations and to witness their faith. Moreover, they are commanded to “do unto others as you would have others do unto you”. It seems pretty clear that you would have others convert you to Christianity if you weren’t already a Christian. Moreover, you are commanded to “love thy neighbor as thyself”. This would seem pretty clearly to entail saving your neighbor from eternal damnation if it is reasonably within your power.

3. Obviously accepting Christianity (and the Bible) is staking one’s eternal soul. If you really don’t understand this point, talk to a Moslem.

4. Yup, we discussed some of this on another thread. (Ordinarily I’d provide a link to it for interested readers, but with the II site’s search function disabled I haven’t been able to locate it.) Eventually I abandoned the discussion because your replies became so incoherent that I couldn’t even understand most of what you were trying to say, or how it related to the point under discussion.

5. Now for the only really interesting point in your post:

Topsy was a slave-girl in Uncle Tom’s Cabin. When Aunt Ophelia asked her who her mother and father were, she claimed to have none. She explained her existence by saying: “I ’spects I growed.”

I had assumed that this was still part of our common cultural heritage. Evidently I was wrong.

jpbrooks

bd-from-kg,

One of the things that made this discussion so frustrating for me is that
it is difficult to determine just what kind of argument you would accept as a counter-argument against your position.
You are, however, entitled to believe whatever you want.

1. Comic relief? I assure you, I'm laughing with you. It is impossible to provide a non-circular argument that directly supports the claim that the bible was inspired by God. Any such argument would have to rely on the description of God and his attributes that is presented either explicitly or implicitly by the bible. Therefore, statements from biblical scripture that explicitly point out that God is not a malicious liar count just as much, if not more, in support of the bible's divine
inspiration, as any counter-argument based solely on inferences from the scriptures does against divine inspiration.
The only way to argue in a non-circular manner for the divine inspiration, (or authorship, for that matter), of the bible is to eliminate competing alternative theories about the bible's inspiration. That's what I was attempting to do by pointing out the inadequacy of the notion that God is a malicious liar.
And I have already accomplished that by pointing out that your "malevolent" supernatural entity that you hold as a possible source of inspiration for the bible cannot be shown to exist and thus, could not have written anything.
This admittedly, of course, says nothing at all about the bible being solely the product of "uninspired" evil human beings. But it is safe to say that no evil being that is also supernatural could have inspired it.


2. It doesn't matter what Christianity is "notorious" for. I'm surprised that you, of all people, would fall into the "trap" of deriving "theology" from what Christians are doing!
Your brief sermon above left out the part about salvation being "by grace through faith ...", (Ephesians 2:8-9). Salvation is a work of God; not a duty for humans.
Moreover, even if it were within human ability to bestow salvation on people, there is still no guarantee that that any effort toward the goal of saving everyone would (or even could), due to human choice, be successful. And since "ought implies can", there would be no categorical "duty" to "save" people.
Bible believers are only "responsible" for "spreading the good news". All "responsibility" for another person's salvation ends after that has been done.

3. I could be wrong about this, but AFAIK, most non-Christian religions don't condemn people to hell for all eternity with no way out or with no possible opportunity for a "second chance" in a future "life" to "get things right". So again, if the bible is of questionable truth, it is not clear why there would be anything really eternally "at stake" as far as an "afterlife" is concerned.

4. I don't recall any specific points in my arguments in that thread that were cited as being "incoherent". But that's unimportant now anyway.

5. Thanks. I suppose I can't blame my failure to read Uncle Tom's Cabin on the removal of that book from my school's library. I've had ample time to pick up a copy. I was just never interested in reading it because it is viewed as pandering to stereotypical notions about black people.
But, hey, I had even considered reading Mein Kampf at one time just to satisfy my curiosity. But I was concerned about all of the "furor", (no pun intended), that it would generate if I got caught reading it at that time.
It is safe to say that racist literature holds no fascination at all for me now.

[ January 12, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>