Bible: Word of God or Not

Verification by prediction is indeed something scientists hold in very high esteem.
Do you have any specific examples of biblical predictions coming true?
Or is it, as I suspect, a case of interpretation after the supposedly predicted event has actually happened.......? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

I find the Bibles of Judaism and Christianity as revelatory as any other great collection of ancient art.I find all great art revelatory. I find rocks, trees, stars and standard poodles revelatory..Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

It quite obviously is not the word of god. It does not even claim to be the word of god. It is mostly written as a third person narrative.If those humans who actually wrote the scriptures were inspired, they were inspired with ideas, not words. They used their own words to present those ideas. There is a saying "To err is human", and that aspect of humanity is evident in the bible.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

I believe that when it comes to theology, that the Bible is true, and reliable. That does not mean that it is accurate or without contradiction.I am not at all sure what you mean by "The Word of God" so I will leave that aside unless you can help me understand what you mean by the term.The question is, "How can something that is true and reliable also be inaccurate and have contradictions?"Consider the fable of the Pied Piper or most any fable. The lesson might be true and reliable, but the story itself a complete fiction or containing contradictions. In the fable of the Three Little Pigs animals talk and pigs build houses and wolves blow them down.The Bible is an Anthology of Anthologies. In fact there is not even one Bible, instead there are various canons that each specify different content and different order for the books of the Bible. Each Canon is the result of some committee. There are NO original copies of any of the various books of the Bible known today.The stories in the Bible certainly seem to be the creation of inspired writers, whether it is the soaring imagery of Genesis 1 or the boring detail of the Begats and Begots, the authors had to be inspired to write such material. Each though must stand on it's own. While there may be a common lesson to be learned from all, the individual stories may contradict the detail of another.We can see this at the very beginning of the Bible where Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 are mutually exclusive and depict two totally different views of GOD. The God of Genesis 1 is aloof, apart, overarching and transcendent while the God of Genesis 2 is personal, hands-on, very human and somewhat bumbling. Together they show us how the peoples of the Bible stories saw GOD over time. In the earlier story found in Genesis 2 we see a God that is a super-human, much like the people in the story but with more powers. The later more sophisticated God found in the Genesis 1 story is totally unlike the one in Genesis 2. The God of Genesis 1 is apart and separate from His creation, creates by desire, He simply speaks creation. There is none of the personal hands on forming of creatures or any of the interaction seen in the older tale, no fumbling or missteps as with finding a companion for Adam found in the earlier tale, it is straight forward, majestic and awesome. But not personal.The Bible, regardless of Canon, is a recording of a peoples search to understand GOD, their relationship with GOD, GODs relationship with them and their relationship with the other peoples and critters here on earth.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I don't want to speak for iceage but, generally speaking, when people say the Bible is 'the Word of God' they mean that all the books in their canon were, at best, dictated by God or, at worst, indirectly 'inspired' by God.If that is the case then obviously this God is a a God who loves ambiguity, falsehoods and contradictions.If we take the view that the Bible is indeed the word of God, as described above, then in your Genesis example we would have the word of two distinct and separate Gods. Add to that the hippy, peace-loving God of the first gospels and the mystical, ethically-restricted God of Johanine and Pauline theology and it would be much more accurate to describe the Bible as the 'word of Gods'.It's either that, or accept the notion that -as you say- the Bible describes man's understanding of God, not God's understanding of Man.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

This post definately advances this topic well. Thank you jar.May I add the following:
1) Even if we did not have the book "Misquoting Jesus" the fact that more than one version of the Bible exists is proof that mankind was involved in promoting it and therefor it will contain contradictions and inaccuracies.
2) The Bible is true and accurate in the end because it will lead the interested person to his/her own conversation with God. This is the power of the Bible! Each of us is allowed, no invited, to have a relationship with the Creator. Through that relationship each individual can receive a clear interpertation - from the Master Builder. In the final analysis there is no need for an intermediary. You or I may use an intermediary during the introduction phase of a topic - just to get started, but we are also free to get the scoop from the horses mouth, so to speak.

No it is not impossible to disprove scientific concepts, thats the whole point of science. By using the scientific methodology. Bias is a huge concept in statistical research which is a huge part of psychology. Many checks are in place to reduce bias as much as is possible.

If you are looking for a holy book that is the word of God then surely the Koran can lay better claim.
It was supposedly dictated to Muhammed directly by Allah and has remained unchanged and unedited for thousands of years. Unlike the bible.I would argue that which particular holy book you believe as containing Gods influence will depend almost entirely on where and to whom you are born and the predominant cultural belief system this imposes/indoctrinates.But...in terms of this thread there are other holy books which could lay greater claim to being the word of God than the bible on consistency if nothing else.

I appreciate your question. Its honest and inquisitive. I intend on offering you as much of a personal explanation as I can. Some of this will be a bit coined as its something I've written previously. Hopefully it will answer the question you have from my vantage point.There has been much debate spanning several generations concerning the validity and reliability of the Bible. Because the Bible is considered a religious tome, many scholars feel that it is biased and cannot be trusted for face value without some corroborating, extra-biblical evidence. (In other words, the Bible is guilty until proven innocent).As I've pointed out numerous times on this forum, this a priori standard is seldom applied to any other ancient document, even though many, if not most, contain some level of religious element to them. In fact, I have yet to see anyone question the validity of Plato’s works, for instance, with the same contempt shown for the Bible.But more than all of that, it never ceases to amaze me that the thousands of people that criticize the Bible do not understand even the smallest percentage of it. I guess they somehow think that if they open the Bible and read a chapter that they will be able to know if we are dealing with a just God or not, or whether or not the story contains an element of veracity. But, you know, if I were to open a novel and arbitrarily choose a chapter, I wouldn’t pretend to understand the plot of the entire book.Before I go any further, let me state for the record that it is never beyond me why many people believe the Bible is a book of fables. Never assume for a moment that I have never questioned the Bible. I’ve had to ”wrestle the angel’ for a large part of my life. However, after some honest introspection, it gave me the ability to see that which I was blind to before. I have found that the Bible is not simply a compilation of good advice that was written down centuries ago.In my best estimation, the Bible has no rival. It is a living and active document. Nevertheless, the question still lingers for you: “Is it trustworthy? Who wrote it? Why was it written?”Should we interpret the Bible to be literal or allegorical?The question may not be so simple to answer in such broad terms, as it appears to be a false dichotomy when left to itself. Scripture must be read as literature. In other words, if we feel obliged to interpret the Bible literally, we have to interpret it as literature, while paying close attention to genre and figures of speech. Most scripture is particular to this because the Bible is a historical narrative that is interlaced with symbolism and formatted in a poetic structure.Conversely, if we were to reduce the Bible to a mere allegory that conveys only abstract ideas without any correlation to history, then we would miss its other intent. The most amazing thing about scripture is that it speaks about actual events in human history, but there is usually an underlying message just below the surface. The significance of the story is not always found in the story itself, though it is factual. The real treasure lies within the integrated message system devised by God for the purpose of mankind. Much, if not most of the Bible, is homiletic. God is providing for us a sermon intended to edify the believer or to bring about repentance to the unbeliever. But, if we were to look at the story of Adam and Eve simply as the first human beings on earth, we would overlook the true intent of the story. The true message is one about habitual sin and the consequences for rebellion. Because of this original sin, mankind was then in desperate need of a future Redeemer. In contrast, if we were to view Satan as a literal serpent, we would not only misunderstand the nature of fallen angels, but moreover, we might suppose that Jesus triumphed over the serpent by literally stepping on his head. This description is clearly not the portrait that God is painting for us.And so, the Hebrews of old have always maintained a system of decoding, if you will, in the ”Midrash.’ The Midrash is a specific way of interpreting the Bible. It is divided into four examinations, to which they refer to as, ”peshat’ (direct meaning), ”remez’ (hints), ”derash’ (exegesis), and ”sod’ (mystical). As well, Scripture is broken down book by book. It is a common misnomer that the Bible is a book. The Bible is in fact, a compilation of books, 66 to be exact.But enough about me. What are some of your reasons for dismissing the authenticity of the Bible? Maybe we can start a dialogue there.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Perhaps you are saying that the bible is worthless, and might just as well be junked.Texts are examined, and evaluated, in accorance with their importance. There is a lot of investigation of Shakespeare, because his writings are deemed particularly important.Since you seem to think that we should not be investigating the bible, the reasonable conclusion is that you don't consider the bible to be important. Perhaps you misread, but iceage did not ask whether it is literal or allegorical. He asked whether it is the word or god. You seem to have avoided answering that question. I'm wondering why you are asking iceage that question. I cannot see where he dismissed the authenticity in his OP.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

This looks like a gross misunderstanding of the nature of literary research.For any ancient document--The Epic of Gilgamesh, A Thousand and One Nights, the Tao Te Ching, Plato's Republic, the Rag Veda, and Isaiah--we are indebted to the work of generations of scribes laboring by hand under firelight for the transmission of the texts to us. In no case do we have the original copies in our possession.We value the works we have for the ancient content they possess and the timeless insights they provide--in every case. In each case we take into account historical situations and prejudices and make allowances for these.We also realize that the documents we have passed through many hands. That's why we do our best--in each case--to locate older sources, copies that lie closer in time to the time and location of the original. Pick up any copy of any study edition of a book by Aristotle, say, or Sappho or Sun Tzu. You will see extensive dicussion in the scholars' notes of variant renderings. It's the same situation on encounters in academic study editions of the Bible.In the case of all these books, we have something that has come to us in credible final form. It still can't, at this distance, be considered a 100% matchup with the original document word-for-word and line-by-line. There's nothing wrong with recognizing the reality.People who love ancient books go looking for older and better sources. This is not an attack and an attempt to discredit. It is a desire to get closer to the real thing. It is an act of fascination. It is an act of love.Fundamentalists cannot see this activity for the healthy thing it is because they adopted a rigid stance that their favorite ancient texts must be word-for-word inerrant. As soon as they did that, the normal variation in wording that comes with the transmission of any ancient literature represented a challenge to the dogma. As they made the dogma central to their sense of religious security, any threat to it became in their view a threat to their faith.That's why biblical research makes fundamentalists so mad. They want to ignore the results of it or put a stop to the activity or shame scholars for engaging in it. They cannot see the effort for the good and very normal thing it is. They view it as a seige because they have made an idol of the doctrine of inerrancy. Their idol stands against reality. A stance like that guarantees, from the idolator's point of view, a feeling of perpetual seige. Reality always has you surrounded.In any case, it's silly to suggest the Bible is being singled out to be picked on. One the contrary: what makes fundmentalists mad is that the Bible isn't being treated as a special case. It is being studied as all great ancient books are studied. And it responds in kind. Its journey to us in transmission through history shows the same sort of ups and downs and turns in the road taken by other ancient documents.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Nothing could be further from the truth. If anything the opposite applies, especially amongst Christians.Take Homer's works, for example. Initially they were dismissed as mythological poetry. Now, we have ample evidence to make a strong case for the historical context of the Iliad. We know Troy existed, we know the Greeks waged wars against it, we even know there was a powerful Mycenaean king living at the time (Agamemnon?).Does that mean we must believe that Zeus, Poseidon, Athena and Apollo exist? The Iliad gives numerous accounts not only of their existence but also of their character, interference with the warring parties, etc.So, by applying the standards Christians apply to the Bible:- we should just accept without question the existence of Zeus, Apollo, et al, and their role in our lives.- we should accept that Achilles and Hector were historical figures and the fight between them is historical fact.- If anyone applies any kind of critical analysis to the Iliad, we should just dismiss them by saying they have a hidden agenda. We should also point out that they just don't understand the text and suggest they make an animal sacrifice to Zeus and hope they get good omens.double standards is a wonderful thing!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

quote:

---

In fact, I have yet to see anyone question the validity of Plato’s works, for instance, with the same contempt shown for the Bible.

---

Validity as in accuracy of what was said or validity as in, did Plato really write the words?I think the difference is that we readily admit that God did not physically write the books in the Bible. I've never heard the possibility that God could have physically written any of the books. Plato on the other hand is a man, who could have physically written down ideas. It is accepted that he wrote down what he remembered of discussions by Socrates. We could question how accurate his recollection is, but we at least acknowledge that he was writing from memory.Iceage isn't really looking at whether the information in the Bible is true or reliable. IMO, he's asking members to share evidence that leads them to believe that the words came from God, as opposed to the words coming from mankind and his perception of God or what God expects.Now Prophets supposedly had visions directly from God which they interpreted and wrote down. Their writings are the closest to actually being from God, but all the writings in the Bible do not have that authority behind them.So I feel that those writings have the potential of being God's words through man, but the rest I don't.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

The question was in effect: how does a psychologist (read: scientist) know that the glasses he wears don't tint everything he sees to the colour of the glasses he wears? If the glasses are tinted by the colour "scientific methodology figures it all out in the end" then pointing to scientific methodology as a way to figure it all out in the end is...well...insufficient. This might make for a good discussion in another thread, but it is OT hereEdited by AdminNWR, : off topic

The scientific method is the best means we have of approximating any sort of objective truth. Peer review, repeatable experiments, refutable prediction, reliance on physical rather than persoanl anecdotal evidence etc. etc. are all designed to nullify prejudice, bias and belief when drawing conclusions. The scientific method in it's widest sense is our best effort to peer over the top of the tinted spectacles we all inevitably wear.If you have a better method for reaching the most objective conclusion I am sure we would all love to hear it. However....This discussion may be better held in 'The consequences of evolution is false' thread, where we have reached the same sort of point.Edited by AdminNWR, : off topic