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.
Can you tell me what has led you to assume that the bible is "divinely inspired text"?
If the bible is divinely inspired, then it should be taken literally. Unless you think God is incapable of writing at a high school level.
Of course we can interpret other ancient text to put it into context. But the bible isn't supposed to be just another ancient text, it's supposed to be divinely inspired
I can see why everyone needs to interpret it. Otherwise Christians are faced with the dilemma of realizing they are more moral than their God.
For instance, the bible relegates women to being essentially chattel, something that is immoral. God is supposed to be all-knowing, he must have realized that this would happen.
Why didn't he make one of his ten commandments "Women shall be treated equally"? And how about "Though shall not keep slaves"? If I was God, I would have, and that makes me more moral than your God.
Setting up & attacking a fringe fundamentalist method of biblical interpretation with the argument that this is how Christians approach (or should approach) the Bible is a straw man. As Tzaousios pointed out, you're using & attacking a particular caricature, & based on some of your comments I'm not convinced you genuinely want to converse with us. For that reason, I'm not sure further dialogue is possible.
I was trying to find out if Christians thought the bible was the inspired/written by God.
It answer is clear: The parts they like were inspired, the parts they don't like need to be interpreted.
How else would I take divinely inspired text?
You are saying that God couldn't write at a high school level, and make clear to his followers what he meant.
Or that he couldn't be bothered making the text of His book clear, and instead let mankind mess it up, and this from the God who made the first three commandments all about worshiping Him.
It makes no sense whatsoever that God couldn't make the bible clear.
I admire your mental gymnastics, truly impressive.
I'm not sure if you are being disingenuous, or if you honestly believe that... Hopefully this helps you understand why I can't make sense of the replies I'm getting.
But, you have made this assumption. You cannot blame anyone else for that having happened. I am saying this, that the people who wrote what is put in the bible all seem to have had a faith in God, and this has inspired them to write. But, this is different from saying the words are divinely inspired text. What makes you believe that, if that is what that means to you?Christians, many many of them. Some say it is the word of God, others say it is divinely inspired.
The first error here is that you are treating the whole bible as one thing. You are saying "it" should be treated a specific way. I say that is erroneous because the statements contained within the bible are individual statements, never intended to be put beside the writings of other parts and called one thing. The second error, which nullifies your question, is that the examples you provided cannot be verified to refer to actual events. Again, the reliability of claims reveals your strawman argument.The thing is, if it's not divinely inspired, why would you treat it as anything more than ancient stories, just like the stories of Zeus, Mithra, Rah, and all the other mythical gods?
... I am saying this, that the people who wrote what is put in the bible all seem to have had a faith in God, and this has inspired them to write. But, this is different from saying the words are divinely inspired text.
I have not claimed that it is an exceptional writing. Do you think I have made that claim, or do you expect me to make that claim due to a pattern of other people's claims that you have associated with my claim to faith?But there are other writings of gods, written by people that had faith in their god, so how is your claim the bible is exceptional anything but special pleading?
Yes, I accept that, but wish to remind you that Hinduism is only most popular in parts of India, and that indicates that even if I was born outside of India, I might still have been inclined to believe in Vishnu. That says nothing with respect to what is true and what is not, because people are only a product of their environment. That is what culture does to us. It forces us to be a certain way that we might not naturally be. I think this is why there is truth in what Jesus was saying in John 8:32. As you probably know, He was disgusted by the Jewish culture of the time which had turned the temple of God into a den of thieves.If you were born in India, you would almost certainly believe in Vishnu, and like other Indians, think the bible is a book of myths.
Again, I do not need to be born in an "Islamic" country for that to happen, and if I was, I am pretty sure that I would believe that due to the cultural influence that imposes upon my God-given freedom.If you were born in an Islamic country, you would believe the Quoran is the word of God, and the bible is a book of myths.
Can you please explain why you think this is true?And exactly like you, they use special pleading to prove their text is the true word of god.
I suspect that is a false dichotomy. How can someone who has faith in God not be inspired by God?EDIT: Perhaps I can give a good example. What about Genesis? How could writers who had faith in God, but were not inspired by God, possibly know the Genesis story?
I have not claimed that it is an exceptional writing. Do you think I have made that claim, or do you expect me to make that claim due to a pattern of other people's claims that you have associated with my claim to faith?
Can you please explain why you think this is true?
I suspect that is a false dichotomy. How can someone who has faith in God not be inspired by God?
There is in my mind two possible origins for the stories in the beginning of Genesis.
1. It was observed first hand and conveyed through generations.
2. It was imagined and conveyed through generations.
Can you tell me why you choose to not converse with me on other points I make, and questions I ask of you? I can assume, but I would prefer to know that I am right.
But, this is different from saying the words are divinely inspired text. What makes you believe that, if that is what that means to you?
The first error here is that you are treating the whole bible as one thing. You are saying "it" should be treated a specific way. I say that is erroneous because the statements contained within the bible are individual statements, never intended to be put beside the writings of other parts and called one thing.
The second error, which nullifies your question, is that the examples you provided cannot be verified to refer to actual events. Again, the reliability of claims reveals your strawman argument.
Why does that matter? Is the truth determined by popular vote?No. But surely not believing the bible is exceptional puts you at odds with the vast majority of Christianity?
Thanks. You should accept a different correction though, I would like you to acknowlege that it is rude to not answer questions. Is this conversation only for your benefit? I do actually want to gain from my time with you, if you don't mind.I stand corrected. I think you are the first Christian who has told me that the bible is not exceptional. My apologies.
I don't understand this question. Can I ensure we are on the same page:If God isn't real, how can they be inspired by an imaginary being? Of course you can be inspired by the story of an imaginary being.
What do you mean "far fetched"? Does it mean most likely not true or most likely impossible?I think 1. is pretty far fetched. 2. I can buy.
Ok, I will respect your time. I just would like these to be resolved if you can:Sorry, I was short of time when I answered that post. I'll get to them.
Why wuld they not?If it is not the Word of God, then it is merely an anthology of stories written by men, and why would anyone think the supernatural claims in the bible are based on reality?
why complicate a simple matter and be condemned for it with others ?
2 Timothy 3:16 ESV - All Scripture is breathed out by God ...
2 Timothy 3:16 English Standard Version (ESV) 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in ...
a lot of so-called christians don't even believe Scripture, and many don't seek to do what Yhvh says to do, and many billions have erroneously put their faith in men to tell them what to do.
Yhvh knows all about all of their thoughts and all the deception, and great wrath is stored up for those who have tricked others.
Great Blessings are from Yhvh on all those who trust and obey Him.
Simple. don't mess up.
I cross-posted you, sorry about that. Don't spend too much time going back, I have pulled out two unresolved questions that are important to me, and let's go forward from here.You are correct. You are the first Christian I can remember who ever said that.
It should be the writer, but it is always going to be the reader.That's fine. But then who decides how each part is treated?
Non-Christians have 100% as much right as non-Christians. I don't know what makes a non-Christian give up that right, do you?It appears to be each Christian, but many (most?) claim to have a close personal relationship with God. I can't see why an all knowing god is giving different information, often conflicting information to different people.
So what about with respect to the truth?In respect to you, it is a strawman. My apologies.
This is not the right forum for debate, it will get the thread locked. There is a more theological area elsewhere on this website. I don't go there much (time constraint, I am more interested in assessing non-Christian views). If you start the question over there, you will probably get a good debate. You can quote me if you want, just make sure you tell me so I can keep an eye on what is said (you know now how the absence of the author leads to misinterpretation).Too bad none of the Christians who believe the bible is the Word of God were willing to discuss this issue. It would have been interesting.
Ask him to define which scripture St Paul is referring to.I don't worry about being condemned by others.
Yes, it seems that as a Christian, you get to believe whatever you want to believe, and you never need to question your beliefs, because God agrees with you.
I cross-posted you, sorry about that. Don't spend too much time going back, I have pulled out two unresolved questions that are important to me, and let's go forward from here.
Non-Christians have 100% as much right as non-Christians. I don't know what makes a non-Christian give up that right, do you?
Christians don't always listen to God, despite that they can and that they claim to.
This is not the right forum for debate, it will get the thread locked. There is a more theological area elsewhere on this website. I don't go there much (time constraint, I am more interested in assessing non-Christian views). If you start the question over there, you will probably get a good debate. You can quote me if you want, just make sure you tell me so I can keep an eye on what is said (you know now how the absence of the author leads to misinterpretation).
Proof depends on acceptance. There is no such thing as proof, period. What I refer to is non-Christians give up their right to form and advocate their own opinion about what biblical authors have said. They defer instead (as you have done), to the opinion of those who believe sufficiently to claim faith, and then go about demonstrating that there is discrepancy between the way believers understand those statements.Considering there is no proof that any God exists, let alone the Christian God, why would they?
You said mythology of Thor, Zeus etc (off the top of my head) is equivalent to claims in the bible. I had in mind the claims regarding Jesus of Nazareth. I told you it is a strawman because Zeus and Thor are myths whereas Jesus Christ is based on observed events. You said with respect to my view of the bible, it is a strawman. I asked whether you think it is a strawman with respect to the truth.So what about with respect to the truth?
Do you understand why that was done? Perhaps you need to learn how to better satisfy the requirements of the debate forum.A mod moved the thread from the debate area to here. Honestly, that's fine.
I learned something, and that's great. Good luck in your life and your faith.
ThinkForYourself said "When I quote bible verses, I am often told that I am not interpreting them correctly. Yet anyone with a high school education (something I have), should be able to easily understand what is written..." This is directly contradicted by St. Peter, clever rationalizations notwithstanding. It also flies in the face of the Reformation insistence that only the original Hebrew and Greek texts are authoritative, given that not many grade schools provide comprehensive coursework in ancient languages.Ok, thank you. This statement says that St Paul's writing (of which, the specific writings are not listed, btw) contains things that are hard to understand, but does not say that other writings in the bible are difficult to understand (and let's acknowledge that the author of 2 Peter did not know the structure of the bible at the time).
I agree that some of St Paul's writings are difficult to understand, as they require very careful attention to detail and discernment of what is being said and what is not being said. But, St Paul's writings are probably not difficult for us to understand in the sense that the writer of 2 Peter spoke of, since we have had two thousand years of context and understanding to assist us in understanding the things he was writing about. Much of contemporary Christian thought is based on and derived from the understanding of St Paul's, writings, which the early Christians would have found comparatively foreign in their time. I understand that to be what the writer of 2 Peter had in mind when this statement was made.
The second thing said here is that ignorant and unstable readers will distort scripture in general. It might be useful for OP to look at the reason why the author would choose those words to describe the type of people that will distort scripture. Ignorance = not having/wanting to have correct knowledge, and unstable = not sure in their faith.
Thank you for providing this verse, I can see that I don't need to correct my statement after all, and hopefully OP can see how to make sense of the apparent contradiction in what you and I have said here.
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?