How does one tell the difference between that and someone adding ‘’‘facts’‘’ to stories for their own purposes?
Most devout Christians (except for Biblical scholars) wouldn’t be able to answer that.
And Fundamentalist Christians, in particular, believe that every word and phrase in the Bible is the “divinely inspired word of God,” and so, from their POV, there’s no such thing as someone else adding to the Bible – they believe that the entirety of the Bible is exactly what God intended it to be.
Even if the reporting is accurate and they said those words, what exactly stopped them from just making things up that doesn’t stop anyone else from making things up?
See my post just above yours.
God just told me the sin of Sodom was password protecting their Wi-Fi signal.
So at what point in history did the Bible suddenly become “the unchanging divinely inspired Word of God”? Books have been taken out and books have been added.
Which books are canon depends in part on the denomination: Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox Christians all have slightly different canons on the books of the Bible. And, yeah, that’s evolved over time (though the canons have been pretty well set in stone for centuries now).
Fundamentalist Christianity is a relatively recent movement, and really only came into being in the last 100 years or so, long after the canon of the Protestant Bible had been settled.
In particular with the prophets, it is clear they were not given a choice, or if they were it was extremely limited, like limited to no choice. As such generally the words of the prophets are taken with higher weight than let’s say of the gospels which is someone’s recall of the events. Prophecy, unlike kingship/rulership was never delegated to mankind. Here are a few supporting verses:
Jeremiah 20:7–9 — Jeremiah feels deceived and overwhelmed by God’s call, but says: “If I say, ‘I will not mention Him or speak any more in His name,’ there is in my heart as it were a burning fire shut up in my bones, and I am weary with holding it in, and I cannot.”
Amos 3:8 — “The lion has roared; who will not fear? The Sovereign LORD has spoken; who can but prophesy?”
Numbers 22:38 — (Balaam tells Balak): “Have I now any power of my own to speak anything? The word that God puts in my mouth, that must I speak.”
Now yes you can ask about the accuracy of the transcription, it does come against an issue of the prophecy is proven.
I dunno, is this any different than REO Speedwagon’s “Can’t Fight This Feeling”? IOW, how do I know it’s literally that the prophets cannot control what they say, when all this can be interpreted figuratively?
I know by learning to trust their testimony as it’s handed down in Scripture but that’s not what you asked. And I can’t tell you how you should know—whether you interpret their words as literal or figurative.
My point is that isn’t strong evidence that they had no control in the matter, because it could be taken as figurative. You seem to be making a circular argument. It’s literal because they said it’s literal, but arguably they didn’t say it was literal.
People have been talking forever about how they can’t hold back their feelings, they must express themselves, they have no choice, and they don’t literally mean someone is controlling the words that come out of their mouths. They mean it’s harder to keep it in than express it. We don’t know that’s not the case here.
Actually there quite a bit is as opposed to figuratively, though yes in scripture, which I only gave a few examples, but more conclusively in the line that it is meant to be taken literal:
- Ezekiel 3:17–19 — “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning… that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you warn the wicked and he does not turn… you will have delivered your soul.”
- Ezekiel 33:7–9 — Repeats the same calling of Ezekiel as watchman: if he fails to warn, he will be held accountable.
Ezekiel shows the strongest case that God will compel Ezekiel and then we have: - Jonah 3:1–2 — “Then the word of the LORD came to Jonah the second time, saying, ‘Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it the message that I tell you.’” (and we know how that one ended, Jonah brought down to Sheol and back again to speak God’s words, and ending with Jonah still PO’ed about being forced to)
I mean believe what you want but those are some pretty compelling biblical cases for literal.
Do all of these links pertain to Sodom and the specific reason(s) it fell?
Actually yes, the credibility of the prophets recored testimony on the specific reasons was being challenged on the basis of if they can be taken literal (justifying their testimony on the sins of Sodom )or figurative which leads to perhaps other interpretations.
Jonah was pissed that God dragged him back and tormented him until he spoke. But i don’t think we know that he spoke infallibly. And we do know that he ran away
Jonah 3:2–5 suggests otherwise, since the text says the Ninevites “believed God” (3:5), not merely Jonah. That implies they received Jonah’s words as God’s own message.
This actually highlights the point: prophets don’t have free will in choosing what God speaks through them. Jonah is considered a “minor prophet,” but still a prophet — and his story underlines why prophetic words were regarded as uniquely authoritative and preserved with special care. A culture that treated them as God’s own words is less likely to have distorted them, in contrast to the modern tendency to flatten all of Scripture as if it were spoken in the same way.
As for Jonah’s anger, the text (Jonah 4:1–3) shows his frustration not with God’s compulsion to speak, but with God’s mercy in sparing the wicked Ninevites. His despair — even wishing for death — shows how deeply conflicted he was that God would forgive people he considered undeserving. In that sense, the “ordeal” Jonah faced was not only God’s persistence in making him prophesy, but also his struggle with God’s compassion.
Whereas i read it as showing is that Jonah did have free will. God had to bargain with him to get him to prophecy to the ninevites.
I would agree in part — Jonah’s free will was still present in a sense, since it’s clear that God did not change his heart by force or “magic.” Yet at the same time, Jonah was compelled to act as God intended, and that’s the point I was making about the prophets.
So yes, God did not force Jonah’s heart to change, but He did force Jonah’s actions to align with His will.
I also don’t see any bargaining here in the sense we see with Abraham (perhaps you could clarify what you mean). Instead, God used whatever means necessary to compel Jonah — even allowing him to face death and then bringing him back. Jonah himself seems to admit this when he says in Jonah 4:2, “That is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish.”. Here it indicates that Jonah knew that it was inevitable and he didn’t have a choice in the matter, but could postpone it, and headed directly opposite. Perhaps further speculating that he could do that long enough that the time limit would expire and God would destroy the city, and gain sufficient distance to make it impossible.
But just like in Minecraft where traveling 1 block in the Nether is equal to 8 blocks in the Overworld, God had a way, though the ‘pit’ itself to get him back in time to give them the 40 days notice which I suppose it the contract terms on their lease for eviction.. Just having some fun with this last paragraph but I hope the point I’m trying to make comes through.
I’m a little late in this thread. Although I’ve read the Bible through several times in my life, I’ve never seen any sign of demons and attributed being possessed more to having some kind of mental conditions.
As for porn being sinful, although there are four Christian pastors in my family and I listen to their rationale, sin seems overblown as a label. I point out to encyclopedias that have paintings, drawings and statues of intercourse and copulating from historical periods. For example one can type in terms on Wikipedia and see everything in the entries.
I respect your reading of Scripture, but could it be that you’re filtering out the parts that don’t fit your view? The Bible portrays demons as real entities, not just mental conditions. For example, they can transfer from humans into animals (Mark 5:11–13), wander without hosts in “dry places” (Matthew 12:43), and even recognize Jesus’ true identity when ordinary people could not (Mark 1:23–24; Luke 4:33–35). In Acts 16:16–18, the “spirit of divination” is not specifically identified as a demon, but it is commonly understood to be a type of demonic spirit that gave supernatural ability. And notably, Jesus Himself distinguished between healing the sick and casting out demons (Matthew 8:16), showing they were not seen as the same thing. Taken together, these passages suggest the biblical writers clearly meant something more than mental illness when they spoke of possession.