Genesis Redux

jstark wrote:

. . . I say this in order to support the fact, err, contention that the contents of the Bible have been at the mercy of human hands and not under God's divine protection.

I'm arguing this because:

1. I simply don't see the supporting evidence for divine protection for the Bible. If you can supply some that would be helpful.

2. If we except the Bible as a human book then I fell it expands the usefulness of Christianity. Christians have done a lot of work on understanding our spiritual nature. They shoot themselves in the foot when they require certain distinctly disprovable facts to be true.

I do believe that the Bible could have been written by divinely inspired humans. I see nothing to disprove the possibility that the authors of the bible were channelling God. It's just that once that channel went to paper it was up to humanity to preserve it. Something I think we have done relatively well, actually. . .

The bible was either inspired by God or it was not.

Supposing the first premise:

If the bible was inspired, God certainly has the power to have ensured that we would have an accurate recording of his purpose and requirements, if any.

To assume that he would operate against his best interests and allow this valuable word to become adulterated simply doesn't make sense.

About the second premise:

If the bible was not inspired, we who call ourselves Christians are to be pitied.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

[snipped jstark's post]

The bible was either inspired by God or it was not.

Supposing the first premise:

If the bible was inspired, God certainly has the power to have ensured that we would have an accurate recording of his purpose and requirements, if any.

To assume that he would operate against his best interests and allow this valuable word to become adulterated simply doesn't make sense.

This is very close to speaking for God and His plan. What do you know about God's plan that would make entrusting humans with the word of God not make sense?

Did creating humans in the first place only to let them so easily fall make sense? Not to be flippent, but it is a common thing for Christians to on the one hand say we can't know God's plan when being challenged one way and then presume to speak for God and know the plan when challenged another way.

neologist wrote:

About the second premise:

If the bible was not inspired, we who call ourselves Christians are to be pitied.

I don't think so, because there is more to Christianity than alleged divine protection of the Bible. But I would pity anyone who requires a falsehood so much that they are completely incapable or unwilling to accept the truth. Of course the truth is built on what you experience and learn, but eventually the evidence is either going to be accepted or require increasingly insane rejections.

Kind Regards

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

[snipped jstark's post]

The bible was either inspired by God or it was not.

Supposing the first premise:

If the bible was inspired, God certainly has the power to have ensured that we would have an accurate recording of his purpose and requirements, if any.

To assume that he would operate against his best interests and allow this valuable word to become adulterated simply doesn't make sense.

This is very close to speaking for God and His plan. What do you know about God's plan that would make entrusting humans with the word of God not make sense?

Did creating humans in the first place only to let them so easily fall make sense? Not to be flippent, but it is a common thing for Christians to on the one hand say we can't know God's plan when being challenged one way and then presume to speak for God and know the plan when challenged another way.

neologist wrote:

About the second premise:

If the bible was not inspired, we who call ourselves Christians are to be pitied.

I don't think so, because there is more to Christianity than alleged divine protection of the Bible. But I would pity anyone who requires a falsehood so much that they are completely incapable or unwilling to accept the truth. Of course the truth is built on what you experience and learn, but eventually the evidence is either going to be accepted or require increasingly insane rejections.

Kind Regards

0 Replies

jstark wrote:

This is very close to speaking for God and His plan. What do you know about God's plan that would make entrusting humans with the word of God not make sense?

Nonsense. It's making assumptions based on 1 premise espoused by christians. Noone can speak for god, because he is either too high and holy for anyone to understand (your view) or he doesn't exist at all (other view).

Quote:

Did creating humans in the first place only to let them so easily fall make sense? Not to be flippent, but it is a common thing for Christians to on the one hand say we can't know God's plan when being challenged one way and then presume to speak for God and know the plan when challenged another way.

What? ALL Christians claim to know the mind of God in one way or another. Some phrases to support that claim:

"It's God's will."
"If you sin you go to hell."
"The Bible is God's word."
"God Loves You"

neologist wrote:

About the second premise:

If the bible was not inspired, we who call ourselves Christians are to be pitied.

I don't think so, because there is more to Christianity than alleged divine protection of the Bible. But I would pity anyone who requires a falsehood so much that they are completely incapable or unwilling to accept the truth. Of course the truth is built on what you experience and learn, but eventually the evidence is either going to be accepted or require increasingly insane rejections.

Kind Regards[/quote]

Evidence? You speak of evidence?

If the bible is not divinely inspired, then you've had however many thousands of years of meddling priests and editors with ulterior motives mucking through your one source of knowledge about your god. If not divinely inspired, you are screwed.

To put it bluntly.

Cheers!

0 Replies

I'm really confused as to who is saying what in the last few posts, so I'll go back to my original statement with a few explanations: (italicized)
The bible was either inspired by God or it was not.

Supposing the first premise:

If the bible was inspired, God certainly has the power to have ensured that we would have an accurate recording of his purpose and requirements, if any.

This statement would be true: ". . .so my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results, but it will certainly do that in which I have delighted, and it will have certain success in that for which I have sent it." (Isaiah 55:11)

To assume that he would operate against his best interests and allow this valuable word to become adulterated simply doesn't make sense.

About the second premise:

If the bible was not inspired, we who call ourselves Christians are to be pitied.

OK, maybe it could be said more directly:

Questioner wrote:

. . .you are screwed.

0 Replies

Questioner,

Sometimes I can't tell if your agreeing with me, disagreeing with me or secretly laughing at me. I'll pick disagree, it's more fun. Smile

Questioner wrote:

jstark wrote:

This is very close to speaking for God and His plan. What do you know about God's plan that would make entrusting humans with the word of God not make sense?

Nonsense. It's making assumptions based on 1 premise espoused by Christians. Noone can speak for god, because he is either too high and holy for anyone to understand (your view) or he doesn't exist at all (other view).

jstark wrote:
Did creating humans in the first place only to let them so easily fall make sense? Not to be flippent, but it is a common thing for Christians to on the one hand say we can't know God's plan when being challenged one way and then presume to speak for God and know the plan when challenged another way.

What? ALL Christians claim to know the mind of God in one way or another. Some phrases to support that claim:

"It's God's will."
"If you sin you go to hell."
"The Bible is God's word."
"God Loves You"

Why couldn't He both exist and be knowable? The objection I have is that Christian's will sometimes say "it's God's will" and other times say that no one can speak for God. Christian's seem to like to be able to define God's plan and purpose while in an argument and then throw their hands up while on defense ("It's a matter of faith", "God works in mysterious ways", etc.).

As for Christians being screwed, I guess from the Christian perspective there would be a brief period of "readjustment". But what are they going to do, become completely dead spiritually? They would move on and the world would be better for it.

Kind Regards

0 Replies

Sorry, I woke up feeling rather ill today, and am not really in my right mind. (though it is probably difficult to tell a difference)

Quote:

Why couldn't He both exist and be knowable? The objection I have is that Christian's will sometimes say "it's God's will" and other times say that no one can speak for God. Christian's seem to like to be able to define God's plan and purpose while in an argument and then throw their hands up while on defense ("It's a matter of faith", "God works in mysterious ways", etc.).

Gotcha. Then. . . yeah, I agree with that. Shocked

Quote:

As for Christians being screwed, I guess from the Christian perspective there would be a brief period of "readjustment". But what are they going to do, become completely dead spiritually? They would move on and the world would be better for it.

Hrm, perhaps I could phrase it differently for better understanding.

One of the main (and really, only) arguments surrounding the spiritual validity of the bible is the claim that it's god inspired, and god protected. There are so many contradictions between the testaments, so many rules and laws and examples put in that by todays standards seem somewhat close minded and barbaric that if they were to discover that this fundamental belief was in err it could cause such a divisive rift within christianity that it might never heal again.

You'd see an explosion of different denominations, some only loosely based on the original tennants of the christian faith, emerge. In my opinion this would cause whatever shreds of validity the Christian faith currently maintains to dissolve almost utterly.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

I'm really confused as to who is saying what in the last few posts, so I'll go back to my original statement with a few explanations: (italicized)
The bible was either inspired by God or it was not.

Supposing the first premise:

If the bible was inspired, God certainly has the power to have ensured that we would have an accurate recording of his purpose and requirements, if any.

This statement would be true: ". . .so my word that goes forth from my mouth will prove to be. It will not return to me without results, but it will certainly do that in which I have delighted, and it will have certain success in that for which I have sent it." (Isaiah 55:11)

To assume that he would operate against his best interests and allow this valuable word to become adulterated simply doesn't make sense.

I see what you are saying, what I was saying is that it requires you to guess about God's intent. Also, if God was preserving the Bible, don't you think He would have done a better job? Why not scribe it on some Heavenly material that never decays? Why put the Apocrypha in some versions and not in others? Why have it say one thing in Hebrew and another in English ("Red Sea" vs. "sea of reeds" for example)?

Maybe His not protecting the Bible is a test for humanity, we know He's into that!

neologist wrote:

About the second premise:

If the bible was not inspired, we who call ourselves Christians are to be pitied.

OK, maybe it could be said more directly:

Questioner wrote:
. . .you are screwed.

Welcome to the club! Smile

Kind Regards

0 Replies

jstark,

"One can never receive enough evidence of God,
if they do not have faith. And if there is faith, there is never a need for evidence." - Anonymous

0 Replies

Questioner wrote:

jstark wrote:

As for Christians being screwed, I guess from the Christian perspective there would be a brief period of "readjustment". But what are they going to do, become completely dead spiritually? They would move on and the world would be better for it.

Hrm, perhaps I could phrase it differently for better understanding.

One of the main (and really, only) arguments surrounding the spiritual validity of the bible is the claim that it's god inspired, and god protected. There are so many contradictions between the testaments, so many rules and laws and examples put in that by todays standards seem somewhat close minded and barbaric that if they were to discover that this fundamental belief was in err it could cause such a divisive rift within christianity that it might never heal again.

You'd see an explosion of different denominations, some only loosely based on the original tennants of the christian faith, emerge. In my opinion this would cause whatever shreds of validity the Christian faith currently maintains to dissolve almost utterly.

Seems like you could be describing the current state of Christianity. Smile

If the Bible is 100% the work of humanity, there may still be some tidbits of wisdom in there.

Hope you feel better soon.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

jstark,

"One can never receive enough evidence of God,
if they do not have faith. And if there is faith, there is never a need for evidence." - Anonymous

"One can never receive enough evidence of the Tooth Fairy, if they do not have faith. And if there is faith, there is never a need for evidence." -me

Faith, in my opinion, should be based on a certain amount of evidence. You can do all the research you want, but when your ready to throw the the switch there is always a certain amount of faith that it's not going to blow up in your face! But you should make sure that the experiment is based on the best possible information available.

I don't know if the human mind can be fully based in evidence and proof. There is always a level of uncertainty to everything about us. So I think there is always faith. Some people are more in touch with it than others. But faith can also be blind and I don't think thats usually a good thing.

Kind Regards

0 Replies

Well, for me, it is based on a certain amount of evidence; however, I doubt that you would accept it as such.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

Well, for me, it is based on a certain amount of evidence; however, I doubt that you would accept it as such.

Ye hath no faith!

0 Replies

I didn't figure you would understand that statement.

What you would call a coincidence in my life, I call God doing for me. Evidence of God to me is what He does in my life every day.

Now, you wouldn't accept that as evidence, would you jstark?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I didn't figure you would understand that statement.

What you would call a coincidence in my life, I call God doing for me. Evidence of God to me is what He does in my life every day.

Now, you wouldn't accept that as evidence, would you jstark?

Let me test the ice here...

I could except it as evidence of something. If you call it God, I would not dissagree but only because I do not know what you mean by God from the evidence you present.

There are clearly forces at work in the Universe that are beyond our comprehension, to have faith in them only seems natural.

-J

0 Replies

So, does that mean if I told you of something that others might call a coincidence and told you that I believe it was God working and therefore; evidence of God, might you accept that?

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

So, does that mean if I told you of something that others might call a coincidence and told you that I believe it was God working and therefore; evidence of God, might you accept that?

I don't think I have ever argued against the existence of God, per say. On these forums or anywhere. We have a word for God, so it must mean something. I argue all the worldly things like history and logic and justice, etc.

So back to your direct question, yes, I would say that your statement could be in line with what I think about God. Based on the evidence, I doubt we would agree on what God is though, so my admission would not get us very far.

-J

0 Replies

jstark wrote:

I see what you are saying, what I was saying is that it requires you to guess about God's intent. Also, if God was preserving the Bible, don't you think He would have done a better job? Why not scribe it on some Heavenly material that never decays? Why put the Apocrypha in some versions and not in others? Why have it say one thing in Hebrew and another in English ("Red Sea" vs. "sea of reeds" for example)?

Maybe His not protecting the Bible is a test for humanity, we know He's into that!

There are numerous accounts in the bible of those who experienced incredible exhibitions of God's qualities only to revert to thir own desires within days, perhaps even hours. There are others who suffered extreme persecution and deprivation just to have a copy of the bible in their own langauge. In the end, folks believe according to their desires.

The apocryphal books, when examined closely, clearly do not fit in with the canonical books.

I suppose it is a test for humanity, but in keeping with the thought expressed in 1Corinthians 10:13:
"No temptation has taken YOU except what is common to men. But God is faithful, and he will not let YOU be tempted beyond what YOU can bear, but along with the temptation he will also make the way out in order for YOU to be able to endure it."

jstark wrote:

Welcome to the club! . . .

I've been clubbed many times and now have a very thick head. Laughing

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

There are numerous accounts in the bible of those who experienced incredible exhibitions of God's qualities only to revert to their own desires within days, perhaps even hours. There are others who suffered extreme persecution and deprivation just to have a copy of the bible in their own language. In the end, folks believe according to their desires.

Well if God parted the Red Sea in front of my eyes, I would be a believer, let me tell you.

neologist wrote:

The apocryphal books, when examined closely, clearly do not fit in with the canonical books.

I know, I'm not arguing that they fit, just that they were there in the KJV and are there now in some versions and not in others and Catholics canonized them out of spite, etc. Some Bibles have them. Some centuries had them. They are in and out. Whats God's verdict here? Whats a Christian to believe?

neologist wrote:

I suppose it is a test for humanity, but in keeping with the thought expressed in 1Corinthians 10:13:
"No temptation has taken YOU except what is common to men. But God is faithful, and he will not let YOU be tempted beyond what YOU can bear, but along with the temptation he will also make the way out in order for YOU to be able to endure it."

Hmm, thats a good one. Do you have a team of monkeys working round the clock looking up refs for you?

neologist wrote:

jstark wrote:
Welcome to the club! . . .

I've been clubbed many times and now have a very thick head.

Ha! Evolution is proved!

-J

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know