If God wrote a book, what would it look like?

[ViaCrucis]

All over the place:

"How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked,
Nor stand in the path of sinners,
Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!
2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord,
And in His law he meditates day and night." Ps. 1:1-2 (NASB)

"8 This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success." Josh. 1:8 (NASB)

"6 These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up." Deut. 6:6-7 (NASB)

"3 He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord." Deut. 8:3 (NASB)

"18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and i]">[i]from the holy city, which are written in this book." Rev. 22:18-19 (NASB)

None of those passages

A) Mention the Bible

B) Say the Bible is to be taken more seriously than anything else in life

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SnowyMacie]

Already addressed. Of course there are instances where clothing is important (for symbolic reasons, in these passages). It doesn't matter because the point was that there were indications that it was ultimately irrelevant, which is exactly what we'd expect from the Creator. He doesn't care about clothing (because he can see through it), which is why Adam/Eve were created naked and then told to multiply.

Your point was that God sees clothes as irrelevant, and now it's irrelevant except where it's symbolically important?

I will also point out that after Adam and Eve did eat the fruit, they felt naked and ashamed about that fact, and so God sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves.

I don't think you understand. I'm talking about the human concept of family where the family unit is valued more than anyone else in the world. This idea is repudiated all over Scripture, by Christ, the apostles, etc. Lot also repudiates the concept of family when he offers his daughters to the Sodomites. The reason Lot offers them his daughters is because he considers the men to whom he's shown hospitality for the night to be his sons (Lot values everyone equally).

Except where Jesus charges John to care for his mother, Abram lies to protect his wife, the first miracle of Jesus was likely done a family friend's wedding, etc. Jesus does preach against valuing family above himself, but he also does that for literally everything else in the world. That's really not all the same as what you said in your OP where you called family an "irrelevant and evil concept". If that were the case and family did not matter at all, then I guess it wouldn't be important that Jesus comes from the line of David. There's entire books of the Bible dedicated to counting families and who belongs to what clan and family, and entire chapters about genealogies.

Scripture says that man's heart is evil from his youth. I think you're mistaken about God's law being inside of a natural human heart.

Scripture also says that mankind also has a conscious and knows right from wrong, regardless of whether or not they actually follow what is right.

"For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them."

All over the place:

"How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked,
Nor stand in the path of sinners,
Nor sit in the seat of scoffers!
2 But his delight is in the law of the Lord,
And in His law he meditates day and night." Ps. 1:1-2 (NASB)

"8 This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success." Josh. 1:8 (NASB)

"6 These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up." Deut. 6:6-7 (NASB)

"3 He humbled you and let you be hungry, and fed you with manna which you did not know, nor did your fathers know, that He might make you understand that man does not live by bread alone, but man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the Lord." Deut. 8:3 (NASB)

"18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and i]">[i]from the holy city, which are written in this book." Rev. 22:18-19 (NASB)

None of those passages are talking about the Bible, nor say it should be taken more seriously than anything else in life.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Why would it have to be the most popular genre?

It wouldn't really have to be the most popular genre, but it would have to have been a common genre and all religious saga's and cultic texts which we have from the ancient world are mythical.

 

[Achilles6129]

Your point was that God sees clothes as irrelevant, and now it's irrelevant except where it's symbolically important?

The point is that in a certain place clothing is indicated as irrelevant to God. And, indeed, clothing would be irrelevant to the Creator of the universe.

I will also point out that after Adam and Eve did eat the fruit, they felt naked and ashamed about that fact, and so God sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves.

God didn't sew fig leaves for them.

Except where Jesus charges John to care for his mother,

Christ actually charges John to care for his (Christ's) mother. That repudiates the natural concept of family, which is my point. The natural concept of family is irrelevant to God and actually evil.

1) God values everyone equally since he made everyone
2) God is the only definition of good
3) The natural concept of family involves valuing people unequally, which is why favoritism/partiality is shown to family members
4) The natural concept of family contradicts God and therefore contradicts the only definition of good
5) The natural concept of family is evil (from 1-4)

That's the whole point of Paul calling Timothy his "son" in the Pastorals. Peter calls Mark his son in his letter. The entire point is that the biological concept of family (which is the natural concept) has been repudiated. Everyone is being valued equally and hence everyone is now "son, daughter, sister, brother, mother, father."

In addition, Jesus Christ clearly teaches that family can be an impediment to God. If he didn't mean that then he wouldn't have quite clearly said that you have to hate your mother/father/brother/sister/children etc., in order to be his disciple (Lk. 16:26). You didn't address this nor any other of the passages I quoted in my post.

As far as your remark about genealogies is concerned, the lists of genealogies have nothing to do with the concept of family we're talking about (which involves valuing some people above others) and rather are just talking about who's descended from who. This is a way to trace Christ to David in order to show he fulfilled prophecy, etc.

Scripture also says that mankind also has a conscious and knows right from wrong, regardless of whether or not they actually follow what is right.

If man knows how to do good then God is a part of man since God is the only definition of good. You can't have good coming from outside of itself. The only way to do good is through God, i.e., through obedience to his commands. I would suggest that you misinterpreted the passage you quoted. Remember that Paul can be quite confusing.

"17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." Mk. 10:17-18 (ESV)

None of those passages are talking about the Bible, nor say it should be taken more seriously than anything else in life.

I think the the "word of the LORD," etc., is the Bible. And clearly he's telling you to take it more seriously than anything else as he's telling you to meditate in it all the time (!). There are other passages that say that it's your life itself. There are curses upon those who tamper with it and you're specifically told that unless you obey it you'll be doomed. In addition, it's the word of the Creator of the universe. I'd say that all that put together indicates that it should be taken more seriously than anything else in life.

 

[Esiar]

It wouldn't really have to be the most popular genre, but it would have to have been a common genre and all religious saga's and cultic texts which we have from the ancient world are mythical.

Mythical isn't exactly a genre, though. It comes with what they wrote about. If it's an old religious text of course it's going to be defined as mythical.

 

[Davian]

Not very good criteria.

...says the guy using bible codes...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

If God wrote a book, what would it look like?


..............................................................

.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This question is for both those who believe the Bible is the word of God and those that don't: if the Creator of the universe wrote a book, what would it look like? What are your criteria? I'll name five:

1) Clothing is irrelevant

• Since the Creator can see through everyone's clothing, somewhere in the book it will be indicated that clothing is irrelevant and that the Creator doesn't care whether or not you wear clothing

2) Family is irrelevant

• Since the Creator created everyone and values everyone equally the book will indicate that family, at least as understood by natural human beings, is an irrelevant and, indeed, evil, concept.

3) Fulfilled prophecy

• In this book there will be predictions of events that will pass many years after they have been written. These predictions will be extremely accurate and all of them will come true

4) Literary complexity

• Since the book was written by the most intelligent being in existence, it will display a great literary complexity and artistry that will make itself known to those who diligently study it. This literary complexity could involve the use of numbers or it could involve complex literary devices

5) Radical concept of morality

• Since the Creator created everything and everyone and can see things that no-one else can (i.e., through clothing), the book will suggest a concept of morality that is far different from the morality that a natural human being is familiar with. The reason for this is because the Creator obviously has a radically different perspective than a natural human being

I would strongly suggest that the Bible fulfills all five of these criteria and that this is powerful evidence that indeed it is the word of God.

Thoughts?

My thought would be that the very idea that a "god" would decide to communicate through a book is moronic. I'm not saying it's not possible...I'm saying that the god would need to be very very dumb in order to think this is an effective means of communication between itself and its creation.

If you want evidence of this, think of any religious text and then think of all the current and past interpretations of that text. Think of all the ways they differ. Then think of how not just the text...but the very passages within all have different interpretations within denominations.

As a clear, and effective means of communication...writing a book is pretty dumb. I don't see any way around this.

 

[Achilles6129]

Hi,

Are you saying God can't make his words clear in his book? God doesn't argue over interpretation, human beings do.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I have often thought such a book would have magical powers, and glow beautifully.

But we are stuck with books cant agree on. I think each book is a cognitive journey. Where does the journey end and what is the path like?

 

[Achilles6129]

"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Mt. 24:35

 

[Ana the Ist]

Hi,

Are you saying God can't make his words clear in his book? God doesn't argue over interpretation, human beings do.

Has god made his word clear "in his book"? Obviously not...or there would be only one interpretation.

You're right, god doesn't argue over interpretation...he's completely silent on that issue and all others. Funny that.

 

[Achilles6129]

I think God can make the meaning clear to anyone who's really sincere.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think God can make the meaning clear to anyone who's really sincere.

That's nice.

Why write a book or send a messenger at all then? Why not just skip straight to the part where he delivers his message to you (or everyone) clearly and consistently?

There's some rather obvious conclusions here and I'm curious to see if you reach them.

 

[Achilles6129]

That's nice.

Why write a book or send a messenger at all then? Why not just skip straight to the part where he delivers his message to you (or everyone) clearly and consistently?

There's some rather obvious conclusions here and I'm curious to see if you reach them.

I already answered. A book is practical as a record of events that have transpired. It's also practical if you want to show the eternal and unchanging nature of your word (and God apparently does). Remember he says that his words stand firmer than heaven and earth.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I already answered. A book is practical as a record of events that have transpired. It's also practical if you want to show the eternal and unchanging nature of your word (and God apparently does). Remember he says that his words stand firmer than heaven and earth.

And yet it's completely open to interpretation...incomplete and flawed.

If you really think it's "unchanging" you need to look more into the history of your book. It's gone through more changes than I care to count.

So those conclusions I spoke of...let's look at some shall we?

1. God doesn't want his word to be "clear" to everyone.
2. God doesn't really care if you get his message partially, entirely, or clearly.
3. God isn't all that effective at communication (I call this the "impotent god")
4. God doesn't write books (and yours isn't his)

There are other conclusions to draw, of course, but those are a good start.

 

[Achilles6129]

And yet it's completely open to interpretation...incomplete and flawed.

If you really think it's "unchanging" you need to look more into the history of your book. It's gone through more changes than I care to count.

So those conclusions I spoke of...let's look at some shall we?

1. God doesn't want his word to be "clear" to everyone.
2. God doesn't really care if you get his message partially, entirely, or clearly.
3. God isn't all that effective at communication (I call this the "impotent god")
4. God doesn't write books (and yours isn't his)

There are other conclusions to draw, of course, but those are a good start.

Anything is open to interpretation, obviously. But I would say that God isn't going to withhold the truth from anyone and so if someone really wants to know he'll show them.

But I would argue that Scripture is pretty clear in and of itself. I'd invite you to give examples where it isn't.

I disagree with all of your conclusions. Also, I would like to see examples of the countless changes you claim it's been through.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Anything is open to interpretation, obviously. But I would say that God isn't going to withhold the truth from anyone and so if someone really wants to know he'll show them.

But I would argue that Scripture is pretty clear in and of itself. I'd invite you to give examples where it isn't.

I disagree with all of your conclusions. Also, I would like to see examples of the countless changes you claim it's been through.

Everything is not open to interpretation.


Look at the sentence above. There is literally just one interpretation of it.

Certainly an all powerful god could've been just as clear as that sentence was in delivering his message to everyone. Yet he wasn't, and isn't.

 

[Achilles6129]

Everything is not open to interpretation.


Look at the sentence above. There is literally just one interpretation of it.

Certainly an all powerful god could've been just as clear as that sentence was in delivering his message to everyone. Yet he wasn't, and isn't.

Right, well I hope that you know that when I said "anything" I was using hyperbole. Obviously the Bible contains statements about morality, science, history, symbols, etc. Clearly such things are open to interpretation.

Again, I'll submit that God will make the meaning clear to anyone who sincerely wants the truth. I'll also submit that many of these statements are clear anyway and that they're argued over by fallible human beings.

 

[Davian]

Harold Camping for dummies

• Davian
• Apr 29, 2014