The Inspiration of Scripture

[bekkilyn]

Without the Bible, how could we hear from God?

Without the Temple, where would we find God?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The doctrine of bible alone is responsible for all the disagreements and incompatible with Christian history.
Not my worldview , just fact.

The fact that all the essential teaching is just the same now as it was in the earliest fathers, gives credence to the idea that Jesus kept his promise. " MY church will be one" " the gates of hell will not prevail"

Take a Eucharist of the real flesh, valid only if performed by bishop in succession or his appointee, is just as true now as it was in John the apostles time, which he clearly taught his disciples. Where do you stand on that? Or is it your understanding as non denoms - ships without a compass - that has drifted?

It is not fact. It is your worldview. Facts are things that can be observed in the here and now and can be tested and repeated. For there is a big difference between Observable Science vs. Historical Science.

The Bible can be tested as being true with Observable Science because we can see many evidences in the here and now today that back it up in being a divine document. The fact that it can transform our lives today is yet another testimony to it's truthfulness.

Here again, are some evidences that back up God's Word as being divine or as a holy document:

Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

 

[Tree of Life]

I'm sure that's what you've been taught, but it doesn't make sense unless one also believes God exists only in the Bible and is incapable of speaking anywhere else and the Spirit is squelched and silenced within a person. Also, there are many who "hear" God in the Bible and yet have absolutely no agreement with one another. Doesn't sound very infallible at all.

I'm sure that's what you've been taught!

I don't think God is incapable of speaking elsewhere. I simply believe that God has chosen to speak to us through prophets he raised up in the past and ultimately through his son Jesus as the Scriptures say (Hebrews 1:1-2). These words of the prophets, of Jesus, and of the apostles are recorded for us in Scripture. This, indeed, was Jesus' own view of the Bible. If you want to take a closer look at Jesus' view of Scripture, see this other thread of mine: Jesus' View of Scripture

 

[Tree of Life]

Without the Temple, where would we find God?

Could you answer my question?

 

[bekkilyn]

Could you answer my question?

I did.

 

[Tree of Life]

I did.

It appeared that you deflected it with a question of your own. Please be more clear. Without the Bible, how can we hear from God? I really would like to know what you have in mind.

 

[bekkilyn]

I'm sure that's what you've been taught!

I don't think God is incapable of speaking elsewhere. I simply believe that God has chosen to speak to us through prophets he raised up in the past and ultimately through his son Jesus as the Scriptures say (Hebrews 1:1-2). These words of the prophets, of Jesus, and of the apostles are recorded for us in Scripture. This, indeed, was Jesus' own view of the Bible. If you want to take a closer look at Jesus' view of Scripture, see this other thread of mine: Jesus' View of Scripture

And yet, God did not limit himself to speaking only through the prophets of old just as he does not limit himself in how he speaks to us today.

 

[bekkilyn]

It appeared that you deflected it with a question of your own. Please be more clear. Without the Bible, how can we hear from God? I really would like to know what you have in mind.

If you find the answer to the one, you will know the answer to the other.

 

[Tree of Life]

And yet, God did not limit himself to speaking only through the prophets of old just as he does not limit himself in how he speaks to us today.

Could you mention some other ways that God speaks to us today apart from Scripture?

 

[A Realist]

It appeared that you deflected it with a question of your own. Please be more clear. Without the Bible, how can we hear from God? I really would like to know what you have in mind.

Judaism survived without the temple, just as Christianity would survive without the bible.

That's what she means.

 

[Tree of Life]

Judaism survived without the temple, just as Christianity would survive without the bible.

That's what she means.

Yes I understand that's what she's saying. It's very alarming. My question to her was: "Without the Bible, how can we hear from God?"

She is not able to answer it.

 

[FireDragon76]

It is not fact. It is your worldview. Facts are things that can be observed in the here and now and can be tested and repeated. For there is a big difference between Observable Science vs. Historical Science.

The Bible can be tested as being true with Observable Science because we can see many evidences in the here and now today that back it up in being a divine document. The fact that it can transform our lives today is yet another testimony to it's truthfulness.

That's a dubious argument and is potentially setting people up for disappointment. It's really not different from the stuff Joel Osteen preaches.

I mean, I'm sure Mormonism and Scientology transform lives, but they are still based on hokum.

 

[Ken Rank]

Who says?

History... there was no NT until 200AD and there is no evidence you can show to prove otherwise. Therefore... any time the NT references the word of God in written form, it is a reference to the OT.

You have nothing to argue against that and look silly trying.

 

[Ken Rank]

Ken is your point that the NT is not the very words of God?

I only saw this because I viewed the ignored messages on this thread. In other words... I had you blocked. The NT is inspired by God, period. It is accurate and trustworthy, period. But.... it wasn't in widespread distribution until well into the 2nd century. Which means, when the NT letters themselves references the Word of God in written form, it is a reference to the OT. 2 Tim 3:16 is not saying use the NT for instruction, correction, rebuke, etc. (we CAN use it because we NOW KNOW that these were inspired words) but AT THAT TIME... those letters were just letters to those who wrote them. Paul didn't sit down thinking he was adding to the bible, when he wrote to Corinth it was because he wanted to address their lack of understanding when it comes to authority, among other reasons. When Paul penned 2 Tim 3:16 he was thinking the Law, Prophets and Psalms.

 

[Tree of Life]

I only saw this because I viewed the ignored messages on this thread. In other words... I had you blocked. The NT is inspired by God, period. It is accurate and trustworthy, period. But.... it wasn't in widespread distribution until well into the 2nd century. Which means, when the NT letters themselves references the Word of God in written form, it is a reference to the OT. 2 Tim 3:16 is not saying use the NT for instruction, correction, rebuke, etc. (we CAN use it because we NOW KNOW that these were inspired words) but AT THAT TIME... those letters were just letters to those who wrote them. Paul didn't sit down thinking he was adding to the bible, when he wrote to Corinth it was because he wanted to address their lack of understanding when it comes to authority, among other reasons. When Paul penned 2 Tim 3:16 he was thinking the Law, Prophets and Psalms.

So what's your point? Why is this relevant to the OP?

 

[Tree of Life]

Why? Are you planning on losing your bible anytime soon?

I just see a lot of people criticizing the necessity of Scripture, but I don't see them able to propose other viable methods of hearing from God. It makes me wonder how serious their criticisms really are.

 

[bekkilyn]

Why? Are you planning on losing your bible anytime soon?

Puts a whole new angle on Christian prepping, eh?

 

[GingerBeer]

Do you think that God would approve or disapprove? Whether he thought it was his words or not... It was God's will that it is in the canon. It's biblically sound. If it was not God's will, it would not be recorded in the text of His word.

Your reasoning is circular. If you want to stand by "what the bible says God says" then Paul's comments imply that Paul didn't adhere to that aphorism. Similarly the ideas expressed in Ecclesiastes present several difficulties for the aphorism's claim.

 

[A Realist]

I just see a lot of people criticizing the necessity of Scripture, but I don't see them able to propose other viable methods of hearing from God. It makes me wonder how serious their criticisms really are.

What did the Jews do after the Babylonians destroyed their temple and they were sent into exile? How did they keep their religion alive?

 

[Tree of Life]

What did the Jews do after the Babylonians destroyed their temple and they were sent into exile? How did they keep their religion alive?

Through the use of the Bible.

 

[Ken Rank]

I don't have time to sift through 45 pages. Could you summarize your point?

When the NT letters were sent out, they were sent to certain churches in certain cities for certain reasons. While inspired, Paul, James, Peter (etc.) didn't sit down thinking, "I am writing something that will stand alongside Deuteronomy." We can do that NOW because we know they are inspired... but at that time, they were letters by Apostles sharing God's word to edify and correct. And when they wrote, they included references to the written word of God, like 2 Tim 3:16 for example. A verse like that is not a reference to his own words, but a reference to what he considered Scripture in his day... the Torah (Law), Prophets, and Psalms. The NT wasn't compiled and made into what we know to be the NT until 200AD which further drives home this point.

The end around point I am making is we have a NT only culture... but the Apostles were very much fine with the idea that we use the Law and Prophets to learn of God's will for our lives. And this idea has become almost blaspheme today... sadly.