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?

[RJG]

The Bible is just a collection of documents put together in the middle ages. I hope the god character doesn't exist as it is a mentally ill psychopath.

[Zzyzx]

.

So, the Bible makes the claim, and I believe it.

If a different ancient religious book claims it is the word of a different 'god', do you believe that too? Or do you choose the book that is popular in your culture and dismiss the rest?

[Quantrill]

.
If a different ancient religious book claims it is the word of a different 'god', do you believe that too? Or do you choose the book that is popular in your culture and dismiss the rest?

No, I don't believe there is any other book that is the written Word of God. Only the Bible.

Choice plays no role. I believe the Bible is the Word of God. To choose to believe...is not belief.

Quantrill

[RJG]

.
If a different ancient religious book claims it is the word of a different 'god', do you believe that too? Or do you choose the book that is popular in your culture and dismiss the rest?

No, I don't believe there is any other book that is the written Word of God. Only the Bible.

Choice plays no role. I believe the Bible is the Word of God. To choose to believe...is not belief.

Quantrill

Why do you believe the Bible to be the word of the god character when there is no evidence to support that assumption?

[DavidLeon]

With a background in science, I tend to use the word 'know' with a more limited meaning – if I claim to know something I am prepared to provide verifiable evidence to support the claim. If it cannot be verified, I don't know it – but may conditionally accept it as true. Regarding the age of the Earth (which you mentioned), I tend to say “Astrophysicists date the Earth at 4.5 billion years”. They are the people doing the work. I am aware there is general agreement in the field, therefore, I'll provisionally accept what they conclude – but do not make any claims for my own knowledge.

Regarding some issues in geology, hydrology, meteorology, and geomorphology, I have done the research and do state my conclusions as personal knowledge. Some of my debates regarding the biblical flood involve personal knowledge / research / calculations.

It is easy to 'talk past each other' when applying differences in approach.

I think I can appreciate that so long as I can keep in mind that science is a method of investigation rather than a belief system, even though self correcting. The estimated age of the Earth, after all, has changed many times. The theory of evolution I was taught in school a relatively short time ago isn't the theory of evolution of today which won't be the evolution of tomorrow. Science is very often not a deductively valid exercise.

I would say that Bible writers felt motivated ('inspired') to write their thoughts and opinions about 'God'. There does not seem to be any assurance that any of the 'gods' were actually involved. Though it is claimed that 'God inspired' writers, that cannot be shown to be true.

Why not?

Their writing was directed by him.

Says who, based on what?

The writers, based upon personal experience. The question then, to the readers is, do you believe the claim based upon the writings?

Evidently a rather poor job of directing – lots of confusion

Such as?

How can one determine if the writers of gospels named after Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John were or were not written by false prophets (claiming wrongfully to be speaking on behalf of Jehovah)?

By reading and studying it until it gives you reason to doubt it. Then investigating whether or not the error is on your part, an error in translation, copying or spurious scripture. You know a false prophet by whether or not what he says is true and in harmony with the rest. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22)

Test it against what? If a writer says that 'many saints arose from their graves and went to town', HOW does one test that tale?

As it turns out that's an excellent example because the passage in question is arguably the most difficult one in the Bible to translate. Following my advice directly above let's first read it: Matthew 27:52-53: "and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people."

That certainly seems to be saying what you said it was saying. That may be cause for some to doubt it, so let's study some and investigate where the possible error might be. 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.

Theobald Daechsel's translation: "And tombs opened up, and many corpses of saints laying at rest were lifted up."

Johannes Greber's translation: "Tombs were laid open, and many bodies of those buried there were tossed upright. In this posture they projected from the graves and were seen by many who passed by the place on their way back to the city."

Still following my advice we see that there is no indication of a spurious scripture or copyist error, and the idea of corpses walking around isn't in harmony with the rest of the Bible unless they've been resurrected from the dead, which in this case we see that they haven't. (Ecclesiastes 9:6, 10; Psalm 146:4; Isaiah 26:14) So your suggestion isn't compatible while my correction is.

Now, is such a scenario within the realm of possible truth? Aelius Aristides, a Greek writer from the 2nd century C.E. reported a similar event and there is also a case in 1949 in Ecuador. El Tiempo, Bogotá, Colombia, July 31, 1962 reported an incident where 200 corpses were lifted up out of their graves from a violent tremor.

Thus, if someone claims that 'God' spoke from the clouds to say that Jesus was his son, we should question the veracity of the tale. How do we determine if it is true or not?

I like to think of it like credit. Credit is a Latin word that means "he/she/it believes." In other words faith. If you've built up trust through experience, through knowing someone, you have faith in that person. Jesus said faith could move mountains. If a mining operation has built up good credit it can do that.

The term “Word of God” is rather ambiguous. It can mean whatever the speaker wishes (in his own mind).

Agreed. You can make it mean digital audio in your mind. In my mind there are two possible ways to interpret anything. Right or wrong. Calling something words doesn't establish the thing as true and accurate. We discussed the accuracy of the term in our previous posts.

How can that be tested for truth and accuracy?

The same test we use to determine false prophets mentioned above.

That means when "God" was walking with Adam in the Garden it was Jesus in his pre-human existence.

Is that a true story?

I believe it to be true. I see no reason not to.

Or leading the Israelites out of Egypt, wrestling with Jacob. Angels (messengers; spirit form), like Michael, who was Jesus, took on human form sometimes to communicate with man. When doing so they were referred to as "angels," "men," "God," and even "Jehovah."

How can any of that be tested for truth and accuracy?

The same as you would test corpses rising up from their graves or God saying from the clouds that Jesus was his son, both mentioned above. Is it a matter of faith?

Modern people who claim to be hearing from God are often medicated or institutionalized.

Perhaps they should be. The Bible covers a considerable period of time. God speaking to people was relatively brief and isolated events. For a specific purpose in specific times. Paul said those events cease, and they did with the death of the last apostle, who happened to be John c. 100 C.E. during the reign of Emperor Trajan. (1 Corinthians 13:1, 8)

Where is 'God's word' to be found?

As I indicated in an earlier post in this thread the word of Jehovah God is spoken by him, through a mediator, Christ Jesus. We have the imperfect translation of that in the Bible.

Bible scholars and theologians are not authoritative. If they say the 2 Timothy is not authentic Pauline they may be wrong. Likewise, if they say that it IS authentic, they may be wrong. Where do we go from there?

Again, test it. Also, if the text is in harmony with the rest it doesn't really matter much who wrote it.

This is going to be really long so I'm going to break it up here and answer the remainder later on today.

[RJG]

DL that is what you believe to be true, you have yet to produce any verifiable evidence to substantiate your statements

[Zzyzx]

.

With a background in science, I tend to use the word 'know' with a more limited meaning – if I claim to know something I am prepared to provide verifiable evidence to support the claim. If it cannot be verified, I don't know it – but may conditionally accept it as true. Regarding the age of the Earth (which you mentioned), I tend to say “Astrophysicists date the Earth at 4.5 billion years”. They are the people doing the work. I am aware there is general agreement in the field, therefore, I'll provisionally accept what they conclude – but do not make any claims for my own knowledge.

Regarding some issues in geology, hydrology, meteorology, and geomorphology, I have done the research and do state my conclusions as personal knowledge. Some of my debates regarding the biblical flood involve personal knowledge / research / calculations.

It is easy to 'talk past each other' when applying differences in approach.

I think I can appreciate that so long as I can keep in mind that science is a method of investigation rather than a belief system, even though self correcting. The estimated age of the Earth, after all, has changed many times. The theory of evolution I was taught in school a relatively short time ago isn't the theory of evolution of today which won't be the evolution of tomorrow. Science is very often not a deductively valid exercise.

Since science is a method of learning about the world we inhabit, it is an ongoing process that does not claim to have all the answers.

Religion is about believing what one is told. It claims to have the answers. “Goddidit”

I would say that Bible writers felt motivated ('inspired') to write their thoughts and opinions about 'God'. There does not seem to be any assurance that any of the 'gods' were actually involved. Though it is claimed that 'God inspired' writers, that cannot be shown to be true.

Why not?

Someone presented that claim with no verification that it is anything more than their imagination.

Their writing was directed by him.

Says who, based on what?

The writers, based upon personal experience.

Thus, if a writer claims to have been inspired by God (based on their experience), the claim MUST be true. Right? Or, is it only regarded as true if it is from our favorite book – and any others who make that claim are wrong?

The question then, to the readers is, do you believe the claim based upon the writings?

When there is no verifiable evidence in support, ask for belief. “Take his word for it"

Evidently a rather poor job of directing – lots of confusion

Such as?

Such as you disagreeing with Bible translators regarding 'saints rising from their graves'.

How can one determine if the writers of gospels named after Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John were or were not written by false prophets (claiming wrongfully to be speaking on behalf of Jehovah)?

By reading and studying it until it gives you reason to doubt it. Then investigating whether or not the error is on your part, an error in translation, copying or spurious scripture. You know a false prophet by whether or not what he says is true and in harmony with the rest. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22)

Thus, if government or corporate propaganda literature 'is in harmony', believe what it says?

Test it against what? If a writer says that 'many saints arose from their graves and went to town', HOW does one test that tale?

As it turns out that's an excellent example because the passage in question is arguably the most difficult one in the Bible to translate.

It must also be difficult to 'explain' how a far-fetched tale is truthful – requiring a lot of mental and verbal gymnastics.

Following my advice directly above let's first read it: Matthew 27:52-53: "and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people."

That certainly seems to be saying what you said it was saying.

Correction: It says exactly what I quoted verbatim. That is the Bible talking – not me.

That may be cause for some to doubt it,

Yes, there is reason to doubt that long-dead bodies arose from their graves and went to town. It will take quite a bit of massaging to make that believable. Even 'the faithful' might have trouble believing that tall tale.

so let's study some and investigate where the possible error might be. As it turns out, you are fortunate in that this isn't my first rodeo

If you claim experience debating I will expect that you will present verifiable evidence to support any claims of knowledge.

Debating here is not akin to preaching in church to pew-warmers anxiously waiting to be told what to believe.

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.

Theobald Daechsel's translation: "And tombs opened up, and many corpses of saints laying at rest were lifted up."

Johannes Greber's translation: "Tombs were laid open, and many bodies of those buried there were tossed upright. In this posture they projected from the graves and were seen by many who passed by the place on their way back to the city."

The King James Version (the Bible version used by more people than all others combined) says:

Matthew 27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Apologists trying to make sense of nonsense (and make a fantasy tale sound real) re-define words – pretending to be more capable than professional Bible translators and editors who produced the KJV.

Still following my advice we see that there is no indication of a spurious scripture or copyist error, and the idea of corpses walking around isn't in harmony with the rest of the Bible unless they've been resurrected from the dead, which in this case we see that they haven't. (Ecclesiastes 9:6, 10; Psalm 146:4; Isaiah 26:14) So your suggestion isn't compatible while my correction is.

Of course, if it doesn't fit or doesn't make sense, CHANGE it

Now, is such a scenario within the realm of possible truth? Aelius Aristides, a Greek writer from the 2nd century C.E. reported a similar event and there is also a case in 1949 in Ecuador. El Tiempo, Bogotá, Colombia, July 31, 1962 reported an incident where 200 corpses were lifted up out of their graves from a violent tremor.

Kindly provide readers with a reference to the 1962 incident. Did the corpses go into town as Matthew claims?

Thus, if someone claims that 'God' spoke from the clouds to say that Jesus was his son, we should question the veracity of the tale. How do we determine if it is true or not?

I like to think of it like credit. Credit is a Latin word that means "he/she/it believes." In other words faith. If you've built up trust through experience, through knowing someone, you have faith in that person.

Build up trust in WHAT person? Know someone from thousands of years ago?

Jesus said faith could move mountains. If a mining operation has built up good credit it can do that.

Correction: Jesus is claimed to have said: “Truly I tell you, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you.” Matthew 17:20

Notice “it will move” – that does not say that a mining company will move it.

The term “Word of God” is rather ambiguous. It can mean whatever the speaker wishes (in his own mind).

Agreed. You can make it mean digital audio in your mind. In my mind there are two possible ways to interpret anything. Right or wrong.

False dichotomy. There are many ways to interpret information.

Calling something words doesn't establish the thing as true and accurate. We discussed the accuracy of the term in our previous posts.

Being written in ancient texts does not establish truth and accuracy.

How can that be tested for truth and accuracy?

The same test we use to determine false prophets mentioned above.

Thus, if a statement agrees with other statements from the same source, it must be true?

That means when "God" was walking with Adam in the Garden it was Jesus in his pre-human existence.

Is that a true story?

I believe it to be true. I see no reason not to.

What you 'believe' is of no significance in debate.

To believe because 'I see no reason not to' is classic argument from ignorance – Argumentum ad Ignorantiam – The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary.

This is not your first rodeo?

Or leading the Israelites out of Egypt, wrestling with Jacob. Angels (messengers; spirit form), like Michael, who was Jesus, took on human form sometimes to communicate with man. When doing so they were referred to as "angels," "men," "God," and even "Jehovah."

How can any of that be tested for truth and accuracy?

The same as you would test corpses rising up from their graves or God saying from the clouds that Jesus was his son, both mentioned above. Is it a matter of faith?

Circular 'reasoning' – believe because you believe

Modern people who claim to be hearing from God are often medicated or institutionalized.

Perhaps they should be.

Agree – and extend that to Bible writers who made the same claim.

The Bible covers a considerable period of time. God speaking to people was relatively brief and isolated events. For a specific purpose in specific times.

OR, people made up tales about 'God' speaking to them. Many still do. In fact, members of this Forum have claimed to hear directly from 'God'.

Shall we believe them? Shall we believe some and not others? How do we decide which ones, if any, to believe?

Paul said those events cease, and they did with the death of the last apostle, who happened to be John c. 100 C.E. during the reign of Emperor Trajan. (1 Corinthians 13:1, 8)

And if Joseph Smith said that communication from the angel Maroni would cease, that must be true. Right?

And if Mohammad said that communication from God would cease after him, that must be true. Right?

Where is 'God's word' to be found?

As I indicated in an earlier post in this thread the word of Jehovah God is spoken by him, through a mediator, Christ Jesus. We have the imperfect translation of that in the Bible.

Thus, the word of God is the word of Jesus, but we don't know what he said because the Bible is unreliable. Right?

Bible scholars and theologians are not authoritative. If they say the 2 Timothy is not authentic Pauline they may be wrong. Likewise, if they say that it IS authentic, they may be wrong. Where do we go from there?

Again, test it. Also, if the text is in harmony with the rest it doesn't really matter much who wrote it.

If what is said in Mein Kampf harmonizes internally, it MUST be true. Right? And, 'it doesn't really matter who wrote it. Right?

[Quantrill]

Why do you believe the Bible to be the word of the god character when there is no evidence to support that assumption?

I don't need your 'evidence' to believe. I just believe it.

Quantrill

[Icey]

.
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?

More recently I see it as a decent direction to live life. But it's not the 'end all be all' of life. And certainly not the word of any god which I would want to associate.

[DavidLeon]

DL that is what you believe to be true, you have yet to produce any verifiable evidence to substantiate your statements

That's nonsense. Have you been reading Higher Criticism? It isn't my intention to produce "verifiable evidence to substantiate" anything any more than it is yours.