Can the Bible's divine authorship be demonstrated by logic?

[McCulloch]

I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction

2. The Bible is God's Word*

Can the Bible's divine authorship be demonstrated by logical deduction?

[Justin108]

I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction

2. The Bible is God's Word*

Can the Bible's divine authorship be demonstrated by logical deduction?

Yup.

The heroes of the Bible are reported so gruesomely negative so often, the scribes show a respect for a power that can hold them to such an accountability that something otherworldly sures look to be at play.

"King" David, a "man after God's own heart?" An adulterer, murderer, and then a weak-willed and hapless father?

Moses a failure?

Many other Israelite "Kings" so corrupt that it was listed time and time again?

Logic would lend support that the Bible is the word of God and certainly not the words of men trying to tell the story of their awesome civilization and its great achievements.

Ok let me get this straight... You're saying that because the characters in the bible are a**holes, therefore the Bible is the word of God? How the hell do you reach that conclusion?

[Justin108]

Duplicate

[Danmark]

I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction

2. The Bible is God's Word*

Can the Bible's divine authorship be demonstrated by logical deduction?

Yup.

The heroes of the Bible are reported so gruesomely negative so often, the scribes show a respect for a power that can hold them to such an accountability that something otherworldly sures look to be at play.

"King" David, a "man after God's own heart?" An adulterer, murderer, and then a weak-willed and hapless father?

Moses a failure?

Many other Israelite "Kings" so corrupt that it was listed time and time again?

Logic would lend support that the Bible is the word of God and certainly not the words of men trying to tell the story of their awesome civilization and its great achievements.

Ok let me get this straight... You're saying that because the characters in the bible are a**holes, therefore the Bible is the word of God? How the hell do you reach that conclusion?

All it means is that the Kings and others were not likely the authors of some of it, tho even Kings can repent. I have no trouble assuming (without study) that David wrote some of the Psalms that bear is name wherein he alternately confessing, wailing, begging, praising, thanking, whining. Certainly sounds human enough, but how you go from there to proof of a patriarchal god is beyond me.

[Clownboat]

I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction

2. The Bible is God's Word*

Can the Bible's divine authorship be demonstrated by logical deduction?

Yup.

The heroes of the Bible are reported so gruesomely negative so often, the scribes show a respect for a power that can hold them to such an accountability that something otherworldly sures look to be at play.

"King" David, a "man after God's own heart?" An adulterer, murderer, and then a weak-willed and hapless father?

Moses a failure?

Many other Israelite "Kings" so corrupt that it was listed time and time again?

Logic would lend support that the Bible is the word of God and certainly not the words of men trying to tell the story of their awesome civilization and its great achievements.

I have some ocean front property available in Arizona if you are interested.

In other words, your evidence is not convincing and you seem willing to believe anything your church leaders will tell you. You list people from the Bible, you then assign human traits to them, and then use that argument as evidence.

Look at these characters in the Bible, they have human traits like the rest of humanity. Therefore the Bible is true.

[jimvansage]

@Danmark - when do you think Matthew was written?

@Goat
Before I outline a prophecy, there are some things to consider.
You said that the OT does not speak of Jesus by name,
and I'm willing to admit that there are many things that the Old Testament doesn't speak of that the New Testament does.

The OT doesn't mention
God in human form (though Job 19:25 has interesting implications),
heaven or hell,
The Trinity

I could go on and on.
But "precept must be upon precept, line upon line" (Is. 28:10)
Not everything that was going to happen was outlined in prophecy - some things remained a mystery.
The "mystery" in Pauline theology is something "once hidden, now revealed" (in Christ and the New Testament

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory" (1 Tim. 3:16)

Though Isaiah and Hosea spoke of the glory of God being shown to the Gentiles (cited in Romans 9:25ff).
So that's a good start.
Job 19:25
Hosea 1:10; 2:23; Isaiah 10:22, 23 (all quoted in Romans 9:25ff)
And what in the world possessed Jewish prophets (who nearly despised Gentiles, especially after the Babylonian exile)
to write that God would show the Gentiles glory also?
When was that, or when will it be fulfilled other than in the church (Gal. 3:28)?

[Clownboat]

The OT doesn't mention
God in human form (though Job 19:25 has interesting implications),

Leaving Job out of this for now.

- Exodus 33:23 And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts.
- Exodus 33:11 And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend.
- Genesis 32:30 For I have seen God face to face and my life is preserved.

It seems that the OT does mention god in human form, does it not?

[jimvansage]

So it does (unless those are anthropomorphisms)
but there are many other things not found in the OT, like "church", etc.

And if I affirm that "seeing God face to face" by seeing the Angel of The Lord was a preincarnate appearance of Christ (though possibly just a theophany rather than a Christophany), then I'll be accused to reading the New Testament into the Old

[Clownboat]

So it does (unless those are anthropomorphisms)
but there are many other things not found in the OT, like "church", etc.

You got me there, I must agree that there are many things not found in the OT. I'm not exactly sure of the relevancy of that statement though.

[jimvansage]

Just because certain details or words are not found in the Old Testament does not mean that the fulfillment is not found in the events described in the New Testament.

It was previously argued that "Jesus' name was never mentioned in the OT" (to paraphrase)
But the Messiah and the Suffering Servant are not named, but how we identify them is a point of contention at this point.

[Goat]

@Danmark - when do you think Matthew was written?

@Goat
Before I outline a prophecy, there are some things to consider.
You said that the OT does not speak of Jesus by name,
and I'm willing to admit that there are many things that the Old Testament doesn't speak of that the New Testament does.

That is a far far smaller remark than I made. Although it does not mention Jesus by name, I am further saying that each and every prophecy is in the following categories

1) retrofitted into place by the NT authors.,, i.e. written TO, rather than from.
2) Vague,
3) Out of context.
4) Mistranslated.

The OT doesn't mention
God in human form (though Job 19:25 has interesting implications),
heaven or hell,
The Trinity

I could go on and on.
But "precept must be upon precept, line upon line" (Is. 28:10)
Not everything that was going to happen was outlined in prophecy - some things remained a mystery.
The "mystery" in Pauline theology is something "once hidden, now revealed" (in Christ and the New Testament

Which could very well be 'he made things up as he went along'. I don't care what Paul said. I care about 'Does the claim that Jesus fulfill 300 prophecies in the OT true, or is that false. Are those prophecies unambiguous, or are they so vague to be able to be interpreted in so many ways to be meaningless.