"Andrew" <thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:2008051517075616807-thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On 2008-05-15 05:32:22 +0100, "Adonis" <zerocalories@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>
>>
>> "Andrew" <thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:2008051418350316807-thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On 2008-05-14 18:01:04 +0100, "Adonis" <zerocalories@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Andrew" <thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:2008051417053416807-thecroft@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> On 2008-05-14 05:22:56 +0100, "Adonis" <zerocalories@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The bible also states it is infallible,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Care to cite chapter and verse for where the Bible says this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2 Tim 3:16.
>>>>>
>>>>> "All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is suitable for
>>>>> doctrine, for correction, for reproof, for instruction in
righteousness."
>>>>> No mention of infallibility there. No mention that its words are
God's.
>>>>>
>>>> What does the phrase "inspired by god mean"?
>>>> The implication is saying the words contained in this very poorly
written
>>>> bibliography are gods words.
>>>
>>> No, that simply doesn't follow at all. It can be anything from sudden
>>> insight, to recognition of a pattern of events, to full-blown vision.
I know
>>> of no normal understanding or usage of the word "inspiration" that
implies
>>> that people behave like biological dictaphones and there is no
indication in
>>> the Bible that this is what is implied there either.
>>> If, for example, a composer is inspired by a person's actions, as
Beethoven
>>> was inspired by Napoleon to write his 'Eroica' symphony for example,
we do
>>> not attribute the melody etc to Napoleon.
>>> Moreover, the Pastoral epistles - more, perhaps than any other
Biblical
>>> writings - cannot reasonably be read as "God's words". They are
personal
>>> communications of advice from one man to a friend and couched in very
human
>>> terms.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, lets look at what the orginal Greek, what the translation came
from.
>>
>> 16. |3956| Every |1124| Scripture |9999| {is} |2315| God-breathed
|2532| and
>> |5624| profitable |4314| for |3809| teaching, |4314| for |1650|
reproof,
>> |4314| for |1882| correction, |4314| for |3809| instruction |1722| in
|1343|
>> righteousness,
>>
>> Strong's Ref. # 2315
>>
>> Romanized theopneustos
>> Pronounced theh-op'-nyoo-stos
>>
>> from GSN2316 and a presumed derivative of GSN4154; divinely breathed
in:
>>
>> KJV--given by inspiration of God.
>>
>> (Theol.) A supernatural divine influence on the prophets,
>> apostles, or sacred writers, by which they were qualified
>> to communicate moral or religious truth with authority; a
>> supernatural influence which qualifies men to receive and
>> communicate divine truth; also, the truth communicated.
>> [1913 Webster]
>>
>> The point is the words as this passage says are gods. Where did this
"sudden
>> insight" come from? Drug influence? High fever? String tied around the
>> finger? A "recognition of a pattern of events" is nothing more than
seeing
>> that it rains at 3:30 every day, that is not inspiration it is
observation.
>> "full-blown vision", again drug use? The implication is not that at
all, the
>> implication is that these are the words of god, you need to follow
them. That
>> is what is taught, chriatian organizations that differ on that are in
the
>> minority.
>
> But again that's simply NOT what the definition says. Whatever else
Webster's
> definition says, the one thing it does not say (and which is crucial to
your
> argument) is that inspiration involves the literal words of God. And
let's be
> clear here. Your original assertion was that the Bible *stated* that it
was
> composed of (literally) the words of God. All you've come up with are
> "implications" and "inferences", all of which IMHO only make sense if
you
> *assume* that the Bible is held to be the literal word of God.
>
> And note, accepting that the kinds of insight I described come from God
is not
> at all the same as holding that the Bible is composed of God's words.
>
..Which means that the works are not gods, not divine revelation. Meaning
it is
open to scrutiny. You like to use analogies? Then this is an evidence
issued in
a court of law that is picked apart and thrown out because of errors,
inaccuracies, hearsays, non-credible witness, shown to be fable, myth,
non-factual.
>> Because they are gods word albeit transcribed by people, can be used
>> for doctrine. Doctrine means a body of teachings, instructions. Can be
>> used for correction meaning, to set straight on error. Can be used for
>> "instruction in righteousness": ( instruction already defined )
>> righteousness; implies that a person's actions are justified. Nothing
>> taken out of context here, the implication is the bible is the word of
>> god and is correct. If it is incorrect, it is fallible. If it is
>> incorrect it can not be used for instruction, teaching and correction.
>> The implication is then that the bible is infallible.
>
> No. That involves a false dichotomy. And what, exactly, do you mean by
> "infallible"?
>
Look it up.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 2 Peter 1:20-21
>>>>>
>>>>> Refers to prophecy and its interpretation. No mention of
infallibility. No
>>>>> mention that the words of the Bible are God's.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 20. knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private
>>>> interpretation.
>>>> 21. For no prophecy ever came by the will of man: but men spake from
God,
>>>> being moved by the Holy Spirit.
>>>>
>>>> Clear enough to see that the prophecy's are not of human imagination,
but
>>>> words put into peoples heads by this god.
>>>
>>> But the words by which they are re****ted are not God's - they are the
words
>>> of the prophet. Again, that is what the Bible actually says very
clearly.
>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Ah; the "but" word.
>>
>> proph·et Audio Help /'pr?f?t/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
>> Pronunciation[prof-it] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
>> -noun 1.a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine
inspiration.
>> 2.(in the Old Testament) a.a person chosen to speak for God and to
guide the
>> people of Israel: Moses was the greatest of Old Testament prophets.
>> b.(often initial capital letter) one of the Major or Minor Prophets.
>> c.one of a band of ecstatic visionaries claiming divine inspiration
and,
>> according to popular belief, possessing magical powers.
>> d.a person who practices divination.
>>
>> 3.one of a class of persons in the early church, next in order after
the
>> apostles, recognized as inspired to utter special revelations and
>> predictions. 1 Cor. 12:28.
>> 4.the Prophet, Muhammad, the founder of Islam.
>> 5.a person regarded as, or claiming to be, an inspired teacher or
leader.
>> 6.a person who foretells or predicts what is to come: a weather
prophet;
>> prophets of doom.
>> 7.a spokesperson of some doctrine, cause, or movement.
>>
>>
>> The speech writer is god, the prophet is the person giving the speech.
>
> Again, that does not arise from any part of the definitions you've just
given.
> A press officer, for example, speaks on behalf of an organisation. That
does
> not necessarily imply that the words she uses are not her own.
>
>>
A press officer does speak for an organization, and always before any
public
announcement is made gets together with the organization the press officer
is
representing and together the organization and press officer goes over
what is
being announced. The language, type of language and how the language is
used; is
carefully selected. This way the message is clear, and what the
organization
wants to be conveyed; is conveyed. The words or message are the words or
message of the organization, period.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 1 Corinthians 14:37
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul says that he is writing at God's direction. He does not claim
>>>>> infallibility, nor does he claim that the words are God's.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 37. If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let
him
>>>> take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are
the
>>>> commandment of the Lord.
>>>>
>>>> Not only is god telling Paul what to say by "divine inspiration" but
that
>>>> what he speaks ARE commands from god. If Paul is talking by gods
direction,
>>>> god is directing what is being said. At that point the words used are
not
>>>> Pauls, but gods.
>>>
>>> Again, that is simply NOT what the words very clearly say. Paul is
saying
>>> that 'X' is what God wants. At no time does he ever claim to be
repeating
>>> word for word what God 'says'.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Ephesians 3:3-5
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. how that by revelation was made known unto me the mystery, as I
wrote
>>>> before in few words,
>>>> 4. whereby, when ye read, ye can perceive my understanding in the
mystery
>>>> of Christ;
>>>> 5. which in other generation was not made known unto the sons of
men, as
>>>> it hath now been revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in the
>>>> Spirit;
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is talking about scripture. Writings made by this author,
which this
>>>> author is using for teaching, and correction, which he says he has a
better
>>>> understanding of the "mystery of christ" than those he is writing to.
>>>
>>> Nope. I think you've got that completely wrong. Indeed you're having
to
>>> clutch at straws, interpreting texts rather tendentiously which have a
>>> pretty clear meaning that does not, in fact, suggest what you say.
Against
>>> this you have to line up all the texts that say very clearly that they
are
>>> NOT God's words. Think of all the Psalms attributed to David. Take the
>>> opening words of Ecclesiastes "(These are) the words of Qoheleth".
Take the
>>> book of Nehemiah - written as a first person narrative. Look at the
opening
>>> words of Acts. Set against what the Bible actually clearly and
unambiguously
>>> says about its author****p, relying on tendentious interpretations of a
few
>>> isolated texts to suggest something entirely different seems a little
>>> unreasonable.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't refer to scripture at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, no mention of infallibility in any of those passages, or even an
>>>>> inference of it. No claim, either, that they consist of God's words.
>>>>> Against this you have to put the fact that parts of the Bible are
actually
>>>>> written in the first person by the person identifying themselves as
the
>>>>> writer. You also have to put the fact that the Bible contains genres
like
>>>>> songs and metaphysical poetry where the concept of "infallibility"
(at
>>>>> least in the sense I think you're using it) is meaningless.
>>>>>
>>>>>> There's more, but these are the usual most "christians" quote.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the inverted commas. The fact is that the view that the
Bible
>>>>> is infallible and literally the words of God is a fundamentalist
viewpoint
>>>>> that sprang up toward the end of the 19th Century. "Most" Christians
>>>>> belong to denominations that do not take such a view.
>>>>
>>>> Now you bring up a fundamental problem. There are two basic views on
the
>>>> bible. 1) It is the word of god and is infallible. 2) It is the word
of god
>>>> but can not always be taken literally. Those that take view 1), you
can
>>>> easily see the problem. The bible as a work is very easy to tear
apart. It
>>>> is a horrible bibliography, not even worthy of an academic F. Now
view 2)
>>>> If you can not take the book as a literal writing, or has errors, who
>>>> decides what part is correct, what part is truly given by "divine
>>>> inspiration". What part is figurative, what part is literal. Did god
create
>>>> the universe or not? Did god create matter and set in motion of
evolution?
>>>> If you take view (2) you can not use the bible as reference, by
holding
>>>> view (2), you are saying the book can not be trusted. That means you
have a
>>>> faith, the word meaning very strong belief, in nothing but your own
>>>> imagination.
>>>
>>> No. It's just like everything else you read. You make sense of it as
best
>>> you can and make your judgement about it. There's no mystery to this.
It's
>>> what people do when they read.
>>>
>>
>> Which what you are saying is that, you can pick and choose what you
want.
>> Define it any way you want. Ignore what you do not agree with. What you
are
>> saying is, yea I believe in this god, but a lot of the stuff in the
bible can
>> not be trusted so I'll use my judgment which is better. You can not
have it
>> both ways. The book is either the word of god or it is not. It is
either
>> factual or it is not. Jesus's birth was a miracle or it was not. The
earth
>> was flooded or it was not. God created the universe or did not. Jesus
died
>> and came back to life or did not. To try to straddle the fence is to
say you
>> are not a true believer, but more of agnostic. An atheist, like a
Christian,
>> holds that we can know whether or not there is a god. The christian
holds
>> that we can know there is a god; the atheist, that we can know there is
not.
>> The agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient
grounds
>> either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an agnostic may
hold
>> that the existence of god, though not impossible, is very improbable;
he may
>> even hold it so improbable that it is not worth considering in
practice. In
>> that case, he is not far removed from atheism. His attitude may be that
which
>> a careful philosopher would have towards the gods of ancient Greece.
>
> I think the basic problem you have is that you don't really understand
what
> the Bible is. It's not a book of facts that you either believe or don't
> believe. It's a collection of writings in many different genres, written
over
> a very long period f time, by a large number of very different people
with
> different insights into what God is about. The Bible is not an end in
itself -
> a relation****p with God is the end. The Bible is meant to be thought
about,
> reflected on, prayed over and meditated on. You really are too dogmatic
in the
> assertions you make about the dichotomy between 'factual' or 'false'. If
the
> Bible contains some myths, it does not logically follow that it contains
no
> facts.
>
I understand what the bible is. I understand what it is about. The bible
does
not contain facts.
> Try to think about reading the Bible as like being in a room with lots
of
> different people trying to explain to you what their experience of God
was
> like. Some will try to do it through music, some through straight
description,
> some through metaphor, some through poetry, some through pointing to
what they
> perceive to be God's activity in the world. Christians hold that God
speaks to
> us in the voices and works of those people. In that sense the Bible is
the
> word of God.
>
Try not being so condescending.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> word of god
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> , in other words god used a person to write it's thoughts. Very
much
>>>>>>>> like the memoirs of past presidents.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does that mean that the past presidents don't exist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where do you draw that conclusion?
>>>>>
>>>>> That seems to be where the simile leads.
>
>
|
