Polycarp The argument is that the Bible’s historical accuracy is not relivent to it’s purpose. (and yes it was Paul)
[QUOTE=John 17:20 NIV]
"My (Jesus’) prayer is not for them** (His Disciples) **alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message,
[/QUOTE]
(Bold mine for clarity)
[QUOTE=John 20:31]
But these are written that you may[a] believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Originally Posted by 2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
[/QUOTE]
If the bible is a book of myths and tales, what is preventing somebody from writing “This is all God-breathed, etc” into it? Is there some power that prevents writings from being falsely validated?
Sad truth: you can’t defend the truth or validity of the bible (or any other book or source of information) with citations from within the book itself. All that can be proved that way is its invalidity, if it happens to be false.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Polycarp The argument is that the Bible’s historical accuracy is not relivent to it’s purpose. (and yes it was Paul)
[/QUOTE]
Traditionally, the Epistles to Timothy (as well as the Epistle to Titus) have been attributed to Paul, but a lot of scholars have noted, based on the language and structure used, that they aren’t that similar to the widely accepted Paulene epistles, and have suggested that they were written by a later author attempting to copy Paul’s style. (In an interesting bit of coincidence to this thread, some have suggested that they were written by St. Polycarp).
[QUOTE=begbert2]
Sad truth: you can’t defend the truth or validity of the bible (or any other book or source of information) with citations from within the book itself.
[/QUOTE]
Actually that is a very sad lie from the pit of Hell itself. The Book itself can prove itself to anyone looking in the Word to find God by God Himsefl. It is God who justifies, who shall condemn?
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Actually that is a very sad lie from the pit of Hell itself. The Book itself can prove itself to anyone looking in the Word to find God by God Himsefl. It is God who justifies, who shall condemn?
[/QUOTE]
“My post is my cite” is lame even when God does it.
But tell you what: “Everything begbert2 posts is true”. There. I can no longer be argued against, 'cause I’m always right. It says so, in writing.
If you don’t like that, then why don’t you sit back a moment and figure out why you don’t like it. It might give you some insight.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
But tell you what: “Everything begbert2 posts is true”. There. I can no longer be argued against, 'cause I’m always right. It says so, in writing.
[/QUOTE]
I wouldn’t want for God to challenge me on that, nor you.
[QUOTE=Job 40 NIV]
1 The LORD said to Job:
2 “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let him who accuses God answer him!”
… 7 "Brace yourself like a man;
I will question you,
and you shall answer me.
8 "Would you discredit my justice?
Would you condemn me to justify yourself?
…
14 Then I myself will admit to you
that your own right hand can save you.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
I wouldn’t want for God to challenge me on that, nor you.
[/QUOTE]
That was a little hard to parse, but I assume you’re hoping that I don’t get summarily damned for expressing justified uncertainty.
And yes, I’m well aware that the Christian god is typically presented as summarily damning people for refraining from blindly following the first leader that they are presented with (if it happens to be him), and also summarily damning them for not refraining from blindly following the first leader that they are presented with (if it happens not to be him). This is one of his more ‘endearing’ little quirks.
Nonetheless it doesn’t change the fact that citing a quote in the bible as proof that it is valid is no more informative than doing the same for any work of fiction that happens to (falsely, of course) assert its own factuality. The issue here is one of bootstrapping; the bible is only a valid source for information on its own truthfulness if it has previously been shown to be truthful. Until that point, its assertions are of no more validity than those of any fiction book. This is in fact the one thing that the bible cannot prove about itself; if you believe in the truth of the bible, you came to this knowledge at least in part though the influence of external factors (or you’re insanely gullible and believe whatever it is you hear first, regardless of reality).
[QUOTE=begbert2]
Nonetheless it doesn’t change the fact that citing a quote in the bible as proof that it is valid is no more informative than doing the same for any work of fiction that happens to (falsely, of course) assert its own factuality. The issue here is one of bootstrapping; the bible is only a valid source for information on its own truthfulness if it has previously been shown to be truthful.
[/QUOTE]
begbert2 you don’t realize how circular your argument is. If I’m getting you right you think truth is how many man made books it references. God Himself will validate the Bible to those who seek Him.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Except that Paul (or whoever wrote 2 Timothy) never wrote any such thing; it’s a significant error in translation. 2 Tim 3:15-18 are one long sentence referencing, as is clear from context, the Tanakh (Protestant Old Testament/Jewish Bible), with the underscored portions of the above phrases in apposition to “the [Jewish] Scriptures,” and most of the rest supplied by the translators. 2 Tim 3:16 is often taken out of context to refer to the present 66-book Bible, a truly nasty bit of Bibliolatrous eisegesis.
[/QUOTE]
I’ve seen this line of reasoning here before, and IMO it is terminally flawed, and a bit of sleight of hand.
Certainly Paul was admonishing Timothy* to “…continue in the things that you learned and were persuaded to believe, knowing from what persons you learned them…”* (2 Tim 3:14) NWT
What would have been the things that Timothy and Paul —as first century Jews—learned?
They could have only known the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures. They were Jews, and while they perceived that they had found the promised Messiah, they were still practicing Judaism; for in fact the Messiah was a Jewish figure, part of the Jewish faith and hope. In time, Gentiles were invited into the Christian movement abd this offshoot of Judaism became known as Christianity.
The Christian Greek Scriptures would have been unknown to these men as bible canon.
Why?
*
Because they were living the lives, and writing the letters and epistles that generations later would become bible canon!*
This should beg the questions:
Did the NT bible writers have any reason to believe that the stories of their lives—like the stories of their forefathers chronicled in the OT— would become if not bible canon, an enduring, divinely blessed set of texts that woud govern the lives of future generations?
Is there a basis to believe that the immediate recepients of the NT letters saw them as approved by God? In other words, were the apostles seen as having God’s blessings?
Historically, how were the writings of Matthew, Mark Luke, John, Paul, James Peter and Jude viewed by the Christians of the first century, and in the years that followed?
More importantly, it should beg the question of Christians:
Are the Christian-Greek Scrpitures bible canon? What can be considered bible canon? In other words—and using the Tim 3:16 phrase, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness…” Is the NT “Scripture”?
To what extent is the NT writings applicable to modern Christians, or were the NT writings limited to the first century Christians?
Furthermore, this flawed argument ignores the fact that the Jews of the OT recognized that there relationship with God was progressive; that over 1000 years of writings God had numerous servants that served as judges, leaders, kings and prophets and all of their teachings, writings and edicts became not just addendums to their Laws, but the totaility of the Holy Scriptures. Over the full span of the OT teachings one leader after another rose up and were said to have God’s explicit blessing and direction. In fact, any reference bible shows the tremondous continuity that existed over this span.
Consider too, that the NT writers showed the same continuity. There are thousands of references in the NT that reference the OT.
On top of all this…The Apostles of the NT made changes to the program, right? The Mosaic Law was abrogated, in favor of the Law of the Christ. If one rejects the NT as bible canon, we eviscerate Christianity. Is that reasonable?
So the final question must be, "Is there a reasonable basis to retroactively apply the term “All Scrpiture” at 1 Timothy 3:16, 17 to the New Testament and to modern Christians?"* (*****retroactively because the context of this text is Paul writing to a young man, Timothy, who would have schooled in the Jewish law)
The answer to that qiestion not only is yes, but must be yes. If one rejects the NT as Holy Scrpiture, than the Mosaic Law must apply. It is only the NT that contains the teachings of Christ, Paul et.al.
Sure, Paul didn’t include his own writings in real time as being the texts that Timothy was to hold fast to.
But the evidence that the Jews of the OT accepted progressive teachings, that the Jews of Paul’s day took his words and writings as divinely inspired, and that the Christians who would follow the “Law of the Christ” saw them as divinely inspired is overwhelming.
In the end, is it reasonable for Cgristians to see the NT as valid bible canon and applicable to modern Christians?
Further, is it reasonable for a modern Christian to infer that the original author, the Jews of the first century who received these letters, and the earliest Christian would have seen 2 Tim 3:16 as both relevent and applicable to the NT teachings?
The answer is overwhelming yes.
[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Except that Paul (or whoever wrote 2 Timothy) never wrote any such thing; it’s a significant error in translation. 2 Tim 3:15-18 are one long sentence referencing, as is clear from context, the Tanakh (Protestant Old Testament/Jewish Bible), with the underscored portions of the above phrases in apposition to “the [Jewish] Scriptures,” and most of the rest supplied by the translators. 2 Tim 3:16 is often taken out of context to refer to the present 66-book Bible, a truly nasty bit of Bibliolatrous eisegesis.
[/QUOTE]
Here is a word for word translation of 2 Tim 3:14-17 via an interlinear:
I don’t know how to change fonts or I would post side by side with each individual Greek word with it’s English counterpart. If someone want to show me how, I’ll repost these texts. If anyone else would like to post the word for word translations, I’d sure like to see them.
But I sure sure don’t see the charge, “supplied by the translators.”
[QUOTE=begbert2]
“My post is my cite” is lame even when God does it.
But tell you what: “Everything begbert2 posts is true”. There. I can no longer be argued against, 'cause I’m always right. It says so, in writing.
If you don’t like that, then why don’t you sit back a moment and figure out why you don’t like it. It might give you some insight.
[/QUOTE]
Well, now that sure puts a new light on things. I like it, myself, because it rings true.
I really dislike arguments over the authenticity of the Bible, religion, science, or other systems of belief. They can go no where because neither of these things are 100% in any direction. Right, wrong, black or white it is all interpretation through opposing belief filters. No winners.
The Bible does in fact contain some very important teachings, the same is true of science. But not everything said in either is carved in stone correct.
I suggest everyone find areas of agreement, positive things helpful to us humans and generally forget the rest. Life is like going through tons of manure to find a rainbow. Reading hundreds of books to find a few really good concepts, etc. Don’t stop looking ever, the next book, the next pile may be it. You will know when you find it, guaranteed.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
begbert2 you don’t realize how circular your argument is. If I’m getting you right you think truth is how many man made books it references. God Himself will validate the Bible to those who seek Him.
[/QUOTE]
My argument is circular?? Your argument is “I’ve got a qoute from this book that tells me that this quote from this book is a true an accurate statement about the truth and accuracy of this quote from this book.” It doesn’t get any more circular than that.
If God himself comes and validates it to you, then fine; you believe in the bible because you chatted with God in the flesh, and based on his inherent crediblity* you take his word on the honesty of the book. However, that only validates the book to you. You were pulling out the validation quote and telling it to somebody who clearly was of the opinion that the bible could quite easily be a collection of myths that merely gained the appearance of validity over time. To someone like that, who God hasn’t chatted with and validated the bible to, such quotes are circular and meaningless.
The lesson here is, not everyone is you. In fact, the vast majority of the other persons you interact with won’t be you. So keep in mind the things they have reason to believe when talking to them.
And my argument is, that every book and source of information is an unreliable source of information, until you have reason to think it’s reliable, and even then only so long as you haven’t been shown reason to think it’s unreliable. It has nothing to do with the number of other books that are referenced, though it is true that the more things the book says that I already know to be true, the more likely I’ll trust the rest of it. Books that are full of inaccuracies and fiction, I take to be innacurate or fictitious. That’s all there is to it. If that seems circular to you…well, knowledge builds on previous knowledge, in a vertical stack, not a circle. I know of no instance in my knowledge base where the knowledge relies ultimately on itself for validation.
*the validation of which which is similarly circular, but let’s not go there just now.
begbert2 I can understand your post #132, and agree with you on much of what you said. God does reveal Himself on a personal level, I can’t show God to you, nor prove God to you, only God Himself can. Once He does you can see that God is saying the Bible is true and you realize that man is saying it is not - It, not that the book is citing itself, it’s the Creator of the universe is letting you know, it’s a question of credibility at that point and who you wish to place your faith in.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
This is going into the occult. Jesus did not say in that verse, or any other to talk to a tree. Jesus only talked to a tree once in scriptures and that was to curse it and it died the next day.
[/QUOTE]
Since the scriptures state that GodJesus) created the tree and made it imperfect he was not fair in cursing it. If God created Satan and knew he would turn to evil and take many of his children it seems to me God is taking out his own faults on the creatures etc. that he made imperfect. If God punished humans because now they knew the difference between good and evil he was also not being fair.
According to scriptures Jesus was son of God before he became man, so how he could be a son is a hard thing to grasp.
Monavis
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
begbert2 I can understand your post #132, and agree with you on much of what you said. God does reveal Himself on a personal level, I can’t show God to you, nor prove God to you, only God Himself can. Once He does you can see that God is saying the Bible is true and you realize that man is saying it is not - It, not that the book is citing itself, it’s the Creator of the universe is letting you know, it’s a question of credibility at that point and who you wish to place your faith in.
[/QUOTE]
One is really putting their faith in the Human that wrote it. There is some good in the Bible,like any book,but there is also untruths.There is no way of knowing what a God has said or not said, just a belief in the person who said it. You believe God made Himself known to you, but maybe it is just from your own desires to believe you think it is God, but that doesn’t make for any proof.
Monavis
[QUOTE=the raindog]
I’ve seen this line of reasoning here before, and IMO it is terminally flawed, and a bit of sleight of hand.
Certainly Paul was admonishing Timothy* to “…continue in the things that you learned and were persuaded to believe, knowing from what persons you learned them…”* (2 Tim 3:14) NWT
What would have been the things that Timothy and Paul —as first century Jews—learned?
They could have only known the Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures. They were Jews, and while they perceived that they had found the promised Messiah, they were still practicing Judaism; for in fact the Messiah was a Jewish figure, part of the Jewish faith and hope. In time, Gentiles were invited into the Christian movement abd this offshoot of Judaism became known as Christianity.
The Christian Greek Scriptures would have been unknown to these men as bible canon.
Why?
*
Because they were living the lives, and writing the letters and epistles that generations later would become bible canon!*
This should beg the questions:
Did the NT bible writers have any reason to believe that the stories of their lives—like the stories of their forefathers chronicled in the OT— would become if not bible canon, an enduring, divinely blessed set of texts that woud govern the lives of future generations?
Is there a basis to believe that the immediate recepients of the NT letters saw them as approved by God? In other words, were the apostles seen as having God’s blessings?
Historically, how were the writings of Matthew, Mark Luke, John, Paul, James Peter and Jude viewed by the Christians of the first century, and in the years that followed?
More importantly, it should beg the question of Christians:
Are the Christian-Greek Scrpitures bible canon? What can be considered bible canon? In other words—and using the Tim 3:16 phrase, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness…” Is the NT “Scripture”?
To what extent is the NT writings applicable to modern Christians, or were the NT writings limited to the first century Christians?
Furthermore, this flawed argument ignores the fact that the Jews of the OT recognized that there relationship with God was progressive; that over 1000 years of writings God had numerous servants that served as judges, leaders, kings and prophets and all of their teachings, writings and edicts became not just addendums to their Laws, but the totaility of the Holy Scriptures. Over the full span of the OT teachings one leader after another rose up and were said to have God’s explicit blessing and direction. In fact, any reference bible shows the tremondous continuity that existed over this span.
Consider too, that the NT writers showed the same continuity. There are thousands of references in the NT that reference the OT.
On top of all this…The Apostles of the NT made changes to the program, right? The Mosaic Law was abrogated, in favor of the Law of the Christ. If one rejects the NT as bible canon, we eviscerate Christianity. Is that reasonable?
So the final question must be, "Is there a reasonable basis to retroactively apply the term “All Scrpiture” at 1 Timothy 3:16, 17 to the New Testament and to modern Christians?"* (*****retroactively because the context of this text is Paul writing to a young man, Timothy, who would have schooled in the Jewish law)
The answer to that qiestion not only is yes, but must be yes. If one rejects the NT as Holy Scrpiture, than the Mosaic Law must apply. It is only the NT that contains the teachings of Christ, Paul et.al.
Sure, Paul didn’t include his own writings in real time as being the texts that Timothy was to hold fast to.
But the evidence that the Jews of the OT accepted progressive teachings, that the Jews of Paul’s day took his words and writings as divinely inspired, and that the Christians who would follow the “Law of the Christ” saw them as divinely inspired is overwhelming.
In the end, is it reasonable for Cgristians to see the NT as valid bible canon and applicable to modern Christians?
Further, is it reasonable for a modern Christian to infer that the original author, the Jews of the first century who received these letters, and the earliest Christian would have seen 2 Tim 3:16 as both relevent and applicable to the NT teachings?
The answer is overwhelming yes.
[/QUOTE]
That is an excellent post. I appreciate your reasoning.
My understanding is that many of the NT writings were valued as scripture or ssen as inspired and/or blessed by God long before they were compiled into the Bible we have today.
With that being true plenty of questions still remain. How close is what we have to the original text? Who wrote the original text? There were many writings being circulated and disputed in early Christianity. Who selected which books would be deemed scripture? Was it God? Was it man? What about the other books such as the Gnostic gospels?
After considering these questions realistically how much authority do we give to the books that compile the Bible, and why? Should we expect other more current revelations from God? Why or why not?
IMHO much of the authority given to the Bible in Christianity lies not with any directive from God but from tradition. Even the quoted verse only says that scripture is helpful guidance and doesn’t grant it the ultimate authority or infallibility placed on it by too much of Christianity . I don’t have any particular problem with religious tradition per say. I do have a problem when religious tradition is mistakenly looked at as a source of authority for truth, or worse, as God’s will.
Tradition is not the will of God and I find it detrimental to the group and to humanity in general when any religious group or denomination is so heavily and emotionally invested in tradition that they can’t tell the difference.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
That is an excellent post. I appreciate your reasoning.
My understanding is that many of the NT writings were valued as scripture or ssen as inspired and/or blessed by God long before they were compiled into the Bible we have today.
With that being true plenty of questions still remain. How close is what we have to the original text? Who wrote the original text? There were many writings being circulated and disputed in early Christianity. Who selected which books would be deemed scripture? Was it God? Was it man? What about the other books such as the Gnostic gospels?
After considering these questions realistically how much authority do we give to the books that compile the Bible, and why? Should we expect other more current revelations from God? Why or why not?
IMHO much of the authority given to the Bible in Christianity lies not with any directive from God but from tradition. Even the quoted verse only says that scripture is helpful guidance and doesn’t grant it the ultimate authority or infallibility placed on it by too much of Christianity . I don’t have any particular problem with religious tradition per say. I do have a problem when religious tradition is mistakenly looked at as a source of authority for truth, or worse, as God’s will.
Tradition is not the will of God and I find it detrimental to the group and to humanity in general when any religious group or denomination is so heavily and emotionally invested in tradition that they can’t tell the difference.
[/QUOTE]
You bring up some interesting ppints and questions. I am walking out the door to go out of town for a couple days w/o a computer. I will continue the discussion Sundayish.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
begbert2 you don’t realize how circular your argument is. If I’m getting you right you think truth is how many man made books it references. God Himself will validate the Bible to those who seek Him.
[/QUOTE]
I am OZ, the great and powerful. Who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?
kanicbird, you’ve proven yourself incorrect. Even if God comes down and tells me the Bible is correct, that doesn’t show that the Bible can be shown to be correct from writings in the Bible. You’ve just appealed to an external source.
You can show that the Bible is incorrect using internal information only, if there are contradictions. Of course you need to be open to this possibility, and not have made up your mind that you will ignore or explain away all contradictions, no matter how blatant, before you begin. Try this sometime.
But any reasonably competent author can write a self-consistent piece of fiction. And as lekatt so rightly said, even fiction can have an important message.
[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Revenant Threshold I agree that the believer can see God better then the non-believer, and also A&E knew God better then us. This does set up at least the appearance of unfairness. I don’t think unfairness alone is enough to get one off the hook however. Nor am I sure that it is a contradiction, just a apparent contradiction.
[/quote]
What is the illusion, then? Can you point out what’s giving it the look of contraditction, while actually it’s perfectly fine?
I don’t think that unfairness is enough to get us off the hook either. All i’m saying is that if there is unfairness, then God is presumably happy with that unfairness (or at least happy with free will, his other priority, but that doesn’t enter into this part).
I don’t see how. Satan may have had a sin and death plan, but it is God that decides we go down to the world in the first place. It’s God who gets to pick whether we get to go to an Eden first; Satan’s free will doesn’t impact there.
I would also suggest that there’s a point at which prioritising free will above all is a bad thing. Leaving us at the mercy of an almost-all powerful being who we have no hope of defeating alone seems a bit like the stick to match the salvation carrot, rather than a respect for self-determination.
Well, i’ve sought, and I haven’t found (as of yet, of course ;)). The problem with this is that what you’re looking for doesn’t exist, according to you. Anyone looking for a God will find a being unlike that which they were originally looking for. That’s my point about making a lie of motivation; no one will be able to approach God and choose to believe in God while knowing him. You have to choose to believe and unknown quanitity in order to even learn about it.
But others have power enough to fool us this way. And we’re flawed beings. How can you trust yourself to know that what you feel is actually true and not a trick, or a result of our own flawed nature? Especially if this is true with demons, it seems somewhat risky.
And you’re happy not knowing? I mean, I don’t see why they should pay just because they didn’t know Jesus. That’s not their fault.
I do get the idea of repentance; a person could do horrible things, but if they do truly change then there isn’t much point punishing them. I guess my problem really is that people are given much more leeway in terms of doing bad then they are in terms of believing in Jesus. It seems like the latter is much more important than the former.
[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I do get the idea of repentance; a person could do horrible things, but if they do truly change then there isn’t much point punishing them
[/QUOTE]
I haven’t had much time to reply due to work, but wished to address this issue. It goes much deeper then just being sorry, but knowing you can not undo what you have done, that you need a God to do this, and you know that due to man’s sinful nature you need a God for that point on as your own way can only lead to destruction.
It is possible that you will be called at a later time, but I am lead to ask why are you seeking God? Are you ready in your heart to find a God?