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?

[jimvansage]

It is possible that Genesis one and two are two different stories.
It is also possible that it is the same story told in two different ways, in accordance with the literary style of the time.

You present possibilities as if they were inaccuracies, when all we are really debating is interpretation.
"300+ prophecies are misinterpreted to allude to Christ"
That's possible, but if there is one OT prophecy that accurately predicts Jesus of Nazareth - be it his birth, life, crucifixion, etc., then a supernatural source of the prophecy is demanded (no natural means could have predicted it, even a century before the event).

[Danmark]

It is possible that Genesis one and two are two different stories.
It is also possible that it is the same story told in two different ways, in accordance with the literary style of the time.

You present possibilities as if they were inaccuracies, when all we are really debating is interpretation.
"300+ prophecies are misinterpreted to allude to Christ"
That's possible, but if there is one OT prophecy that accurately predicts Jesus of Nazareth - be it his birth, life, crucifixion, etc., then a supernatural source of the prophecy is demanded (no natural means could have predicted it, even a century before the event).

I believe this point has been made already on this thread, but Matthew in particular was written in part as an attempt to paint Jesus as one who fulfilled prophesy. This proves nothing other than that the author of Matthew had certain prophesies in mind when he wrote, and configured his 'Jesus' character to fit them.

It's kind of like your split rock 'proof' You see a rock that's been split by time, water, and the thaw/freeze cycle, then fit this natural (and common) phenomenon to some ancient words. This is done in the opposite direction as well. One sees the phenomenon, then invents a history for it, a history that employs the supernatural because he is ignorant of the natural processes that caused it; thus inventing a religion or a 'miracle.'

[jimvansage]

The split rock was not my argument, nor is it proof, but it is possible confirmation.

So Matthew saw similarities in what was written before time, and applied them to the events in his Gospel.

Isn't that the argument? If things are similar they must come from the same source?
If the OT and pagan myths are similar, one must be borrowed from the other (I'll not argue strongly against this, but which borrowed from which?)
If this creature and this creature have similar DNA, then one owes it's origin to the other (or they are of the same origin)?

So events recorded in Matthew are similar to OT prophecies:
doesn't mean the events didn't happen
doesn't mean that both books don't owe their origin to the same Source.

[Goat]

Blaise Pascal was wrong.
God and the Bible can be demonstrated rationally.
Faith is not much different than knowledge in this regard, regardless of what Pascal said
(though if you follow Pascal, it might be true, so what's the harm in believing it?)

I'm not ignoring or glossing over your alleged difficulties, I'm just demonstrating that they are not contradictions.
If I can demonstrate that all of the statements you presented can be true, just one possibility, then it is not a true contradiction.

Consider the following:
jimvansage said "I hate fish sandwiches"
jimvansage said "I love fish sandwiches"

I understand without considering anything else, just accepting the fact that I made both statements seems to indicate that I contradicted my self
But ask who, what, where, when, and why if you can
who - jimvansage
what - given
where - at McDonalds, I said I hate fish sandwiches
at the Cafe on Main Street, I said I love fish sandwiches
when - at two different times if at two different locations
why - It's possible that there are two different types of fish sandwiches under consideration: McDonald's which I hate, and the Cafe's which I love

That's not glossing over, that's being rational and demonstrating that both statements can be true and valid.
Of course, it's altogether possible that I as a human have in the past contradicted myself.
It's possible that the Bible contains contradictions, but one would have to explore every obvious and remote possibility before concluding that the two or more statements can't be reconciled harmoniously and logically.

Yet, that does not show anything about God, and the bible's authorship.

[99percentatheism]

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.

[jimvansage]

I already presented the arguments.
My point was that if one possibility exists in which two or more statements alleged to be contradictions can all be true, then it it not a contradiction.

If there are no contradictions, and the Bible is unified, and/or contains predictive prophecy, then it is the Word of God.

[Goat]

It is possible that Genesis one and two are two different stories.
It is also possible that it is the same story told in two different ways, in accordance with the literary style of the time.

You present possibilities as if they were inaccuracies, when all we are really debating is interpretation.
"300+ prophecies are misinterpreted to allude to Christ"
That's possible, but if there is one OT prophecy that accurately predicts Jesus of Nazareth - be it his birth, life, crucifixion, etc., then a supernatural source of the prophecy is demanded (no natural means could have predicted it, even a century before the event).

Well, then, let's look at it. I'll be glad to go on a head to head for the 'top prophecies in the OT' to see what they say IN CONTEXT. From what I have seen, no one has been able to present a prophecy that is not
1) out of context
2) Retrofited (i.e. written to)
3) Mistranslated.
4) or vague so you can read into it anything you want.


Not only that, I am confident enough that you can chose which prophecies to review, and not tell me which ones first.> Do you want to do that, and how many prophecies do you want to address?

[jimvansage]

So, you want me to give you an abbreviated list of what I consider "Messianic" prophecies?

[Goat]

So, you want me to give you an abbreviated list of what I consider "Messianic" prophecies?

I don't want a list. Lists mean nothing..

I want you to take a few of them,and show how they refer to Jesus.. and I want to show you why it doesn't.

Take one or to, and discuss in depth. and I'll show how you are mistaken.

Or three.

Or, we can do that in a head to head.

How about one at a time.. you present one.. discuss it, and show why you think it refers to Jesus;... and i'll show that it's not.

[Danmark]

How about Matthew 24? There is a long list of prophesies that were supposed to have taken place within "a generation" according to Matthew 24:33. Been about 2000 years. Still waiting.