No it's not. At least not as presented by the evolutionists where everything came from a common ancestor. There is not one single iota of evidence that shows that.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No it's not. At least not as presented by the evolutionists where everything came from a common ancestor. There is not one single iota of evidence that shows that.I don’t know all the specifics I just know that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
Perhaps you don't deal to often with those who make that claim and so misunderstand what they mean. I don't know if anyone who actually believes God wrote the Bible himself like he actually penned the words to paper using his own ink and will. It actually makes me wonder if you are trying to stir the pot here.Huh? You said that God wrote the Bible, not that he inspired those who did write. Two very different things. In Islam, the Koran was written by God, but that has never been a common Christian belief.
"Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, let him acknowledge that what I am writing you is the Lord’s command. But if anyone ignores this, he himself will be ignored" (1 Corinthians 14:36-38).
You've misunderstood my meaning. I think it's quite likely that he meant that every word in the Bible was dictated by God as the perfect expression of his intended meaning. That is what I take 'God wrote the Bible' to mean, not that God used pen and ink. That is one possible view on inspiration but it is hardly the only one.Perhaps you don't deal to often with those who make that claim and so misunderstand what they mean. I don't know if anyone who actually believes God wrote the Bible himself like he actually penned the words to paper using his own ink and will. It actually makes me wonder if you are trying to stir the pot here.
Did you actually think that's what was meant?
You've misunderstood my meaning. I think it's quite likely that he meant that every word in the Bible was dictated by God as the perfect expression of his intended meaning. That is what I take 'God wrote the Bible' to mean, not that God used pen and ink. That is one possible view on inspiration but it is hardly the only one.
Perhaps you too are misunderstanding the question.If you have the mindset that the Holy Spirit didn't inspire the writers of the Bible, then there is nothing more I can say.
Being inspired by the Holy Spirit makes Paul's letters very different from any other Christian writing. I can write a book, say, about the true Gospel of Christ, but I can't say it is inspired in the same way that Paul was inspired to write his letters. Paul was an Apostle of Christ, so that when the Holy Spirit inspired him, what he wrote became Holy Scripture. So the inspiration that came to Paul was a direct inspiration that gave him to confidence to say that what he wrote were the commands of Christ. This gave his writing an authority that no other devotional writing had or has. Sure, he was the one who put pen to paper, so in that sense he wrote the letters, but by a supernatural process, what he wrote was what the Holy Spirit wanted him to write.Yup. "I am writing you", that means that Paul is writing it.
And just so you know, Paul is a human. A human author. Unless you think God changed His name to Paul.
See, that conclusion isn't so hard to make.
You seem to be confused about the difference between God writing the Bible, like Mormons believe, in comparison to God inspiring people who then wrote the Bible, like Christians believe. Are you Mormon?
I believe that the letters of the Apostles, written in the original languages were more or less dictated by the Holy Spirit. This is the basis of the Bible being the inerrant Word of God. This is why we hear the voice of God when we read the Bible. However, because of minor changes brought about by translating the Bible into modern languages, then the literary style of the translators may have a bearing on the text. This does not mean that the modern language text (and I include all English texts right from the first one in the 17th Century) has been altered significantly from the original, but words have changed their meaning since the 17th Century when the KJV was translated. But these are fairly minor cosmetic changes and the basic message of the Gospel has not changed. To determine the meaning of Scriptural passages there is the skill of exegesis, to find out what the author meant by the text, and how his contemporaries understood it. Once that is established, hermeneutics is the method about how we apply the text to modern readers. Sometimes theologians get it right, other times they get it wrong. This is why we have different theologies with them arguing against each other.Perhaps you too are misunderstanding the question.
I think we all agree that God inspired the authors to write. And that through the process of inspiration God wrote the Bible because God inspired them to write what he wanted them to.
The question people are wondering is what is your understanding of that process.
1. Did God inspire them to write using their own language and individuality to do so.
OR
2. Did God inspire them to the point where he dictated word for word what he wanted them to say?
Example:
As people who obey God, do not let yourselves be shaped by the evil desires you used to have when you were still ignorant. Therefore, rid yourselves of all malice, of all deceit, hypocrisy and envy, and of all the ways there are of speaking against people; and be like newborn babies, thirsty for the pure milk of the Word; so that by it, you may grow up into deliverance. For you have tasted that is good.
Bible Gateway passage: 1 Peter 1:14, 1 Peter 2:1, 1 Peter 2:2, 1 Peter 2:3 - Complete Jewish Bible
Was every word in that passage dictated by God for Peter to write or did God inspire Peter to write that and Peter used his own words and personality to write the passage?
I'm not challenging you at all. Just trying to clarify so people can know your meaning when you say God wrote the Bible using inspiration to do so.
Lol, I think we have real problems with this. People say they are praying and studying and yet have two different thoughts on a passage. Like the doctrine of speaking in tongues or the doctrine or predestination. Both sincerely believe they are correct and the other is barking up the wrong tree.This is why we have to do our own praying and study of the Scriptures to establish what the Holy Spirit is really saying, so that we don't end up barking up the wrong tree.
True, I could have asked the question. As it turns out, yes, that's indeed what he meant.In 378 he clarified the what was meant when he talked about inspiration. You continued to question the proposition. You think it's quite likely? Why do you think that? Why didn't you just ask him the question?
One of my problems with this view of inspiration is that Paul actually does the opposite: he distinguishes between what he commands and commands that come from Jesus. Nowhere does he claim that he is infallible, nor does he claim that his written words have any more authority than his spoken words. He claims authority as an apostle and as one who has the spirit of God. Anything more than that is a later invention.So the inspiration that came to Paul was a direct inspiration that gave him to confidence to say that what he wrote were the commands of Christ.
You're just rambling now. God didn't write the Bible. Inspired people did.Being inspired by the Holy Spirit makes Paul's letters very different from any other Christian writing. I can write a book, say, about the true Gospel of Christ, but I can't say it is inspired in the same way that Paul was inspired to write his letters. Paul was an Apostle of Christ, so that when the Holy Spirit inspired him, what he wrote became Holy Scripture. So the inspiration that came to Paul was a direct inspiration that gave him to confidence to say that what he wrote were the commands of Christ. This gave his writing an authority that no other devotional writing had or has. Sure, he was the one who put pen to paper, so in that sense he wrote the letters, but by a supernatural process, what he wrote was what the Holy Spirit wanted him to write.
The book of Mormon was written by Joseph Smith. Large sections of it were copied from the KJV version of the Bible. While the Bible itself was totally consistent in its message through all its books. The book of Mormon has no consistency with the Bible, therefore it could not have been inspired by the Holy Spirit in the same way that He inspired Paul.
Actually, your argument about whether the Holy Spirit or Paul wrote his letters is splitting hairs, really. If Paul wrote what the Holy Spirit taught him, then we can quite confidently say that Jesus caused Paul to write what He wanted believers to know.
There is an issue of translation and interpretation. We have all heard the story of the two blind men and the elephant. One has the tail and the other has the trunk and they are having an argument over what an elephant is. My favorite is the drawing of Adam and Eve wearing a leaf. They made clothing back then the same way they do today out of the fiber. You have to spin it, weave it and sow it.I believe Him.
God declares the end from the beginning. He watches over His word to perform what he said He is going to do. "God said" is used many times in Genesis.God didn't write the Bible. Inspired people did.
That's basically Post Modern Liberal theology that makes God as a concept, the ultimate cause, instead of a real Person. So it would be true for the Liberal that a concept can't write Holy Scripture, and so avoiding that God is a real Person enables him to avoid having to be morally responsible to Him.You're just rambling now. God didn't write the Bible. Inspired people did.
We are told that Adam and Eve made aprons out of leaves, making the art showing them wearing just one leaf inaccurate. How they were able to sew the leaves together to make the aprons, we are not told. Maybe God thinks that we have enough common sense to work that out for ourselves. Also, the prominent experts in textual criticism of the Bible state that in all the thousands of manuscripts that we have, there are none that show any variation of the foundation message of the Gospel of Christ, and any textual variations are very minor cosmetic ones such as misspelling or punctuation, and that the majority of our translations are totally true to the Greek manuscripts (excluding the paraphrases such as the Living Bible, Message, Passion, and New World versions that were compiled from the KJV by people who are not Biblical Greek scholars). Also, because the Bible was written so that common people could freely understand it, there is no mysterious sub-text, but the literal text says what it means and means what it says. Of course, anyone can make the Bible say what they want by cobbling together a string of verses twisted out of their natural context.There is an issue of translation and interpretation. We have all heard the story of the two blind men and the elephant. One has the tail and the other has the trunk and they are having an argument over what an elephant is. My favorite is the drawing of Adam and Eve wearing a leaf. They made clothing back then the same way they do today out of the fiber. You have to spin it, weave it and sow it.
Ancient near east cosmology in the old testament is not "modern liberal theology". It's actually the original conservative context of Genesis. The only thing liberal here is your woke interpretation of the Bible, reading it like a science textbook.That's basically Post Modern Liberal theology that makes God as a concept, the ultimate cause, instead of a real Person. So it would be true for the Liberal that a concept can't write Holy Scripture, and so avoiding that God is a real Person enables him to avoid having to be morally responsible to Him.
This guy thinks that bereshit rabba midrash 4 from 300 AD is "post modern liberal theology".That's basically Post Modern Liberal theology that makes God as a concept, the ultimate cause, instead of a real Person. So it would be true for the Liberal that a concept can't write Holy Scripture, and so avoiding that God is a real Person enables him to avoid having to be morally responsible to Him.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?