Is the Bible 'The word of God'?

[Zzyzx]

.
Is the Bible 'The word of God'?

Does it even claim to be 'The word of God'? Where?

Note: Paul/Saul's writings claim that “All Scripture is breathed out by God” in 2 Timothy 3:16. However: 1) The 'scriptures' to which he referred HAD to be Jewish scriptures since the Christian Bible did not exist at that time, 2) 2 Timothy is NOT regarded as authentic Pauline -- no one knows who wrote those words, 3) 'God breathed' is suitably vague to be interpreted however one wishes and does not say that the Bible is the word of God.

In 1 Thessalonians 2:13 (which is regarded as genuine Pauline) he says: “And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is indeed at work in you who believe.” That, however, is ONLY a claim that his teaching is 'The word of God' – NOT the Bible / New Testament (which came a couple centuries later).

Thus, two questionable references to Paul/Saul who was developing a new splinter group religion derived from Judaism.

Where else is the claim made – clearly and unambiguously?

[Difflugia]

As it turns out, you are fortunate in that this isn't my first rodeo and I can tell you that at Matthew 27:52-53 the Greek egeiro means simply raised up rather than resurrected back to life, and in addition to this "they" (meaning the bodies that were walking around) is a pronoun, and in Greek all pronouns have gender and "they" is masculine whereas bodies" (the bodies that were lifted up) is in the neuter. They are not the same.

This explanation is misleading for at least two reasons. First, the verb applied to the bodies of the saints (ἠγέρθησαν, "were raised") is a conjugation of the verb ἐγείρω ("to arise"), which is applied as a noun to Jesus (ἔγερσιν, "an arising") in the same breath.

...and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised (ἠγέρθησαν); and coming forth out of the tombs after his resurrection (ἔγερσιν)...

For your interpretation to be correct, we'd have to believe that Matthew intended readers to not draw a connection between the corpses being "raised" and Jesus "arising."

Second, your analysis of the "they" is misleading. "Bodies" is plural neuter, but "saints" is plural masculine, matching the gender of εἰσῆλθον, "[they,] having gone forth." The implied pronoun for εἰσῆλθον ("[they] entered") is a genderless (not neuter, but applying to any gender) "they."

So, the context suggests this:

...and the tombs were opened; and many bodies of the saints that had fallen asleep were raised; and, [the saints that had fallen asleep] having come forth out of the tombs after his resurrection, [the saints that had fallen asleep] entered into the holy city and [the saints that had fallen asleep] appeared unto many...

The four plural nouns in the immediate context are "rocks," "tombs," "bodies," and "saints." "Saints" is the only masculine plural. Prior to that, the most recent plural, masculine noun is "the rest" in verse 49. That's tempting from an apologetics standpoint, but the clause that needs matching is "had come forth out of the tombs." It seems a bit of a stretch to claim that Matthew meant that "the rest" at the crucifixion later went to the tombs in order to come forth, but I guess I've seen worse apologetic arguments.

I said this isn't my first rodeo.

Were all of the other "rodeos" self-scored or something? Looking back through the thread, you've only attempted to justify three points with anything other than assertion. In addition to the Greek analysis above, the other two, one to me and one to Zzyzx, were:

Bishops and deacons, from the Greek are transliterated when they should have been translated precisely because, as your quote directly above seems to indicate, the apostate church began doing so to be commensurate in presenting them as titles when in fact the first century church didn't use these titles. So, Paul's use of the words (Greek epískopos and diákonos respectively) is no indication of the later practice of the apostate church but simple use of words meaning "overseer" and "assistant." An American Translation and the New World Translation render these according to the original intent. The American Standard Version offers a footnote, "oversees," for episkopos.

As The Jewish Encyclopedia put it: "The arguments by which Wellhausen has almost entirely captured the whole body of contemporary Biblical critics are based on two assumptions: first, that ritual becomes more elaborate in the development of religion; secondly, that older sources necessarily deal with the earlier stages of ritual development. The former assumption is against the evidence of primitive cultures, and the latter finds no support in the evidence of ritual codes like those of India. . . . Wellhausen's views are based almost exclusively on literal analysis, and will need to be supplemented by an examination from the point of view of institutional archaeology."

Was it? The New Encyclopædia Britannica: "Archaeological criticism has tended to substantiate the reliability of the typical historical details of even the oldest periods and to discount the theory that the Pentateuchal accounts are merely the reflection of a much later period."

Every other argument you've attempted over the last four pages was a naked assertion with no further support, an attempt to poison the well by insulting scholars and atheists, or an excuse for not engaging with any of the evidence put before you. Every single one!

[Zzyzx]

.

Many of our threads receive hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of views. Several are at or near 150,000. Waving that away as 'most likely spiders and bots' seems rather disingenuous.

You're wrong. Most (over 90%) visitors spend less than a second viewing a page and most visitors are bots (52%).

Kindly provide verification of your claim.

Is the information specific to DC&R Forum?

[otseng]

It would be known by a serious Bible scholar but not a desperately misguided atheist.

Moderator Comment

Please avoid making comments that could be considered an indirect attack.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.