Were Bible writers 'divinely inspired'?

[Zzyzx]

.
Divine inspiration is claimed by Bible believers.

Is there any way to learn if that claim is true or not?

Is there ANY verification of 'divine inspiration' other than the very book that makes the claim?

[JehovahsWitness]

.
Divine inspiration is claimed by Bible believers.

Is there any way to learn if that claim is true or not?

Is there ANY verification of 'divine inspiration' other than the very book that makes the claim?

Yes I think one way would be to compare any content that could only be explained by divine inspiration (such as fulfilled prophecies) with historical facts.

[Zzyzx]

.

Divine inspiration is claimed by Bible believers. Is there any way to learn if that claim is true or not?

Assuming the question is asked in good faith, (In truth I dont think it is actually being asked in good faith but thats just my commentary)

There is no 'faith' of any kind (good, bad or sideways) in asking the question. It is a DEBATE question. This is not Sunday school or a revival meeting.

one cannot prove a divine entity exists; therefore, its quite silly of one to claim that divine inspiration can be proved or for another to ask if theres any way to prove it.

Exactly. Neither the 'divine' nor the 'inspired' can be shown to be anything other than imaginary -- thus, two strikes against anyone making a claim to know they are true.

How can anyone rational claim to KNOW something if all there is to go on are unverifiable tales in an ancient religious storybook?

[McCulloch]

Yes I think one way would be to compare any content that could only be explained by divine inspiration (such as fulfilled prophecies) with historical facts.

Good idea.
Tyre
Who did Ezekiel say would destroy Tyre forever? Who visited Tyre as recorded in Acts?

Egypt
Ezekiel said that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Egypt. He did not. He also said that Egypt would be empty and barren for 40 years. It was not.

Jesus' Birth
Messiah was prophesied to be from Bethlehem. Jesus was a Galilean.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 11 by JehovahsWitness]

If by divinely inspired, you mean something like God dictated Scripture word-for-word, then you are faced with he problem that the Bible presents around 100 well-documented contradictions. Either that, or God has a memory problem and can't remember who killed Goliath. Because in 2 Sam. 21:19, the Hebrew text claims that Elhanan killed Goliath of Gath. True, some Bible have the passage read that Elhanan killed the "brother of" Goliath. However, that is a gloss on the part of the translators. The original Hebrew has no "brother of," simply says Elhanan killed Goliath. Also, God seems to have a memory problem and can't quite remember the chronological order of creation. In Gen. 1, first animals, then man and woman together. In Gen. 2, first man, then animals, then woman.

Another problem you have is which Bible did God dictate. The typical Protestant Bible, without the Apocrypha, or the traditional Catholic and Anglican Bibles, which contain the Apocrypha? The Septuagint or the Masoretic texts? Was maybe Luther right and we should throw "Ester" in the Danube?

Clearly, "divine inspiration," if it is to have any real meaning at all today, must be thought of in ways other than an appeal to the inerrancy of Scripture.

[JehovahsWitness]

Tyre
Who did Ezekiel say would destroy Tyre forever?

FINALLY DESTROYED FOREVER?

"And I will make you a shining, bare rock, and you will become a drying yard for dragnets. You will never be rebuilt, for I myself, Jehovah, have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord Jehovah" - Ezekiel 26:14


QUESTION: Did the bible wrongly predict the permenent destruction of the city of Tyre?

No, Firstly, note the scripture does not say "you will never be inhabited" it says "you willl never be rebuilt". (The bible does contain some prophecies of perpectual or temporary desolation but this is not one of them). Further, the "you" in the bible's pronouncements is the Phoenician Empire, her dynasty ("you"), (Ez 28:13-18 ) and her capital. Although Tyre would exist under Grecian dominance, as a Roman provence and latter a Lebanese city, Alexander's conquest brought a permanent end the Phoenecian city of Tyre guilty in God's eyes, of mistreatment of His people. She would never again regain her former position.

To illustrate: If a revolutionary stood up in Westminister (the location where the UK Government meets) and pronounced a condemnation on the place saying "The people will rise up and destroy YOU, smash you to to pieces forever, never to be restored"

It would not be unreasonable to conclude that the "YOU" spoken of might rightly be interpreted as the government (the seat of power) as symbolized by the building itself And that even if 100 years after revolutionaries overthrew the government, killed its leaders and pulled the building to the ground, travelling scandenavians rebuilt the structure and used it as a Headquarters for IKEA, the prediction would still stand true. since the power symbolized by the physical structure at the time no longer existed.

CONCLUSION: Ezekiels prophecy in Chap 26:14 was fulfilled when the city of Tyre as a Phenecian centre of power came to a permenent end.

[JehovahsWitness]

Egypt
Ezekiel said that Nebuchadnezzar would defeat Egypt. He did not. He also said that Egypt would be empty and barren for 40 years. It was not.

DID BABYLON CONQUER EGYPT?

The bible speaks of a defeat of Egypt at the hands of the Babylonians. did this happen?

Egypt's attempts to gain control of the Syrian/Palestinian region in 609-607 B.C.E. with a Judean coalition only had temporary success. The Babylonian text, dated to Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, mentions a campaign against Egypt but whether Ezekiel is referring to this particular campaign or to a subsequent military action cannot be said with any certainty. In any case whether by an eventual truce between the two powers, whereby Egypt would pay Babylon tribute or by other means, Nebuchadnezzar did eventually recieve Egypt's wealth as his pay for military service as prophecied by Ezekiel. Eze 29:18-20; 30:10-12.

When was Egypt desolated for 40 years Ezekiel 29:9, 11?

"And the land of Egypt must become a desolate waste and a devastated place; [...] and for forty years it will not be inhabited. " -- Ez 29: 9, 11

The 40-year desolation of Egypt may well occurred some time after Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. While it is true, secular history provides no evidence of this desolation, there is no basis on which to claim there exists proof to the contrary. Further Ezkiel does not explicitly state if the final state of desolation was SOLELY due to the Babylonian "sword" or to that and a combination of factors such as drought or pestilance, in any case, there is not historical evidence to refute that the land was temporarily laid waste.

Could an Egypt that had been desolate 40 years, resurged to become a major world power?

History is strewn with examples of subjugated powers reemerging on the world scene in very short periods of time. Under Hitler, Germany threw of the crushing terms of the Versaille treaty to dominate Europe in the space of just 30 years. The desolation of Egypt no more signalled the end of the Egyptians as a nation than the 70 desolation of Jerusalem marked the disapearance of the Jews. Just as the the Pheneocian city of Tyre would reemerge after waves of conquests, until her a final fatal blow, while Egypt would later be in a position to support the Babylonians against the rising power of Medo-Persia, following Ezekiel's time, her days as a dominator of other "nations" were numbered. Ezekiel indicated that after his time, Egypt would no longer be in a position to dominate other nations.

[JehovahsWitness]

Jesus' Birth Messiah was prophesied to be from Bethlehem. Jesus was a Galilean.

The prophecy in question is that found at MICAH 5:2 which reads: "And you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, The one too little to be among the thousands of Judah, From you will come out for me the one to be ruler in Israel." NWT

As we know the bible account shows Jesus having been born and spending the first year or more of his life in that city. It seems more than reasonable to conclude that the expression "from you will come out" to mean the promised Messiah would somehow be a product of that city, whether that be he would be raised there, or as turned out to be the case, was born there and could thus be viewed as a native or a "son" of that city. In any case, the narrower interpretation of born and raised in the region is in no way imposed by the wording of the text.

[JLB32168]

There is no 'faith' of any kind (good, bad or sideways) in asking the question. It is a DEBATE question.

Asking a question in good faith means that one is actually trying to discuss a topic. Asking a question in bad faith means that one isnt interested in hearing someones opinion or even considering the possibility that hes hypothetically right if only for the sake of debating the question. The easiest way to determine good/bad faith in debate is to see if someone is willing to concede a point " even if its a negligible. If I start out with Assuming God exists which doesnt entail the skeptic to actually concede that God exists, and said skeptic instantaneously changes the argument to one of how Gods existence cant be proved, then the initial question wasnt asked in good faith.

This is not Sunday school or a revival meeting.

I have no idea what youre talking about unless you think that good faith is a religious concept which shows a lot about a persons debating ability since s/he clearly doesn't know about a fundamental concept in debate.

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 18 by JLB32168]

It is gratifying to have so many Theists advising me and helping me learn to debate.

There is no 'faith' of any kind (good, bad or sideways) in asking the question. It is a DEBATE question.

Asking a question in good faith means that one is actually trying to discuss a topic. Asking a question in bad faith means that one isnt interested in hearing someones opinion or even considering the possibility that hes hypothetically right if only for the sake of debating the question.

Asking a question in an OP is intended to foster DEBATE of the topic " not simply to learn someone's opinion. Debate is more than expressing opinions; however, that is overlooked by many who have nothing to offer other than opinions " no credible / verifiable evidence to support their contentions.

In the interest of fostering debate and furthering the growth and development of this Forum, I often ask questions that provoke / promote involvement. As a Non-Theist my OP questions are often challenging to positions taken by Theists (here and elsewhere).

The easiest way to determine good/bad faith in debate is to see if someone is willing to concede a point " even if its a negligible.

Opinion noted. One might also label as 'bad faith' those questions that demonstrate weaknesses in their position.

If I start out with Assuming God exists which doesnt entail the skeptic to actually concede that God exists, and said skeptic instantaneously changes the argument to one of how Gods existence cant be proved, then the initial question wasnt asked in good faith.

I have found that those who start with assuming God exists often attempt to expand that assumption as though it has been conceded that God exists " and discuss the topic as though they were in church or among fellow believers.

This is not Sunday school or a revival meeting.

I have no idea what youre talking about unless you think that good faith is a religious concept which shows a lot about a persons debating ability since s/he clearly doesn't know about a fundamental concept in debate.

What I am 'talking about' is emphasizing the point that debate is very different from preaching.

A credible debater makes solid points supported by verifiable evidence. Preachers tend to pontificate with tales and conjectures regarding supernatural characters and events WITHOUT the inconvenience of supplying verifiable evidence that their whole scheme is anything more than overworked imagination.

Less credible debaters here make weak points that cannot be supported by credible / verifiable evidence. They tend to offer largely opinions supported only by unverifiable ancient tales, testimonials, conjectures.

[catnip]

2Tim.3
[16] All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

ALL scripture is God inspired according to Paul. Which makes it very odd that the church seems to have deliberately chosen to exclude a few books.

Not to mention that Paul died in 67 before any other works of the NT were written outside of his own epistles. Which must mean the OT is profitable for instruction in righteousness, which must mean Christian fellows should be circumcised.

No, that does not follow due to the fact that there are more recent texts that say that Christian fellows should not be circumsized in the scriptures. If both the Old and New Testaments were to be maintained, then these contradictions would have to be answered in some way and chronology would come into play.

Why do you argue that we should believe something that we do not believe and have reasons in scripture for not believing? So you can argue against it? Hello?