Total Posts:61|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is the Bible divinely inspired?

Skepticalone
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
This will be an extension of a conversation started here:

http://www.debate.org...

Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"? It is held by some that the Bible is divinely inspired and this passage is often cited:

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.


https://www.biblegateway.com...

If the Bible is held to be the word of god from this passage then I see multiple problems:

1) The Bible and the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the book of Timothy was written. It stands to reason that Timothy would not have been referring to either and instead would have been referring to established canon. This has serious implications for the grounding of the New Testament (and Christianity). If the NT is not inspired by god does it carry the same weight? No, of course not. We might no longer accept Jesus as the son of god since he is advocated no where other than the NT (or sources influenced by the books of the NT and/or Christians) as such. We might no longer assume NT prophecy as valid. I think you get the idea...

2) Other holy books make similar claims. If claims of divine inspiration are accepted at face value, then all books which do so must be accepted as divinely inspired as well. This would lead us to the conclusion that there are multiple gods. Shouldn't we be following the edicts, morality, teachings of each and not just one?

3) An author claiming to be inspired by god does not mean he actually is. Considering the last point, it is possible none of the holy books are divinely inspired. How does the believer know if the claims of inspiration are valid?

I welcome all who intend to address (or comment on) these points, and I look forward to your thoughts.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
jdmorgan
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:38:02 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
This will be an extension of a conversation started here:

http://www.debate.org...

Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"? It is held by some that the Bible is divinely inspired and this passage is often cited:

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.


https://www.biblegateway.com...

If the Bible is held to be the word of god from this passage then I see multiple problems:

1) The Bible and the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the book of Timothy was written. It stands to reason that Timothy would not have been referring to either and instead would have been referring to established canon. This has serious implications for the grounding of the New Testament (and Christianity). If the NT is not inspired by god does it carry the same weight? No, of course not. We might no longer accept Jesus as the son of god since he is advocated no where other than the NT (or sources influenced by the books of the NT and/or Christians) as such. We might no longer assume NT prophecy as valid. I think you get the idea...

2) Other holy books make similar claims. If claims of divine inspiration are accepted at face value, then all books which do so must be accepted as divinely inspired as well. This would lead us to the conclusion that there are multiple gods. Shouldn't we be following the edicts, morality, teachings of each and not just one?

3) An author claiming to be inspired by god does not mean he actually is. Considering the last point, it is possible none of the holy books are divinely inspired. How does the believer know if the claims of inspiration are valid?

I welcome all who intend to address (or comment on) these points, and I look forward to your thoughts. : :

Scriptures are written words that came from the Word of God that was spoken into the minds of God's prophets and saints. However, the original written words by the prophets and saints got into the hands of religious heathens who had no idea what the Word of God was. These religious heathens destroyed most of the original writings of the prophets and saints but stole some of them to add to their religious traditions and pagan ideas that they were familiar with. This is why religious people do not understand any of the biblical prophecies in the Old Testament and tell their newcomers to read the New Testament instead which is loaded with religious traditions and pagan ideas.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 5:35:09 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:38:02 AM, jdmorgan wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
This will be an extension of a conversation started here:

http://www.debate.org...

Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"? It is held by some that the Bible is divinely inspired and this passage is often cited:

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.


https://www.biblegateway.com...

If the Bible is held to be the word of god from this passage then I see multiple problems:

1) The Bible and the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the book of Timothy was written. It stands to reason that Timothy would not have been referring to either and instead would have been referring to established canon. This has serious implications for the grounding of the New Testament (and Christianity). If the NT is not inspired by god does it carry the same weight? No, of course not. We might no longer accept Jesus as the son of god since he is advocated no where other than the NT (or sources influenced by the books of the NT and/or Christians) as such. We might no longer assume NT prophecy as valid. I think you get the idea...

2) Other holy books make similar claims. If claims of divine inspiration are accepted at face value, then all books which do so must be accepted as divinely inspired as well. This would lead us to the conclusion that there are multiple gods. Shouldn't we be following the edicts, morality, teachings of each and not just one?

3) An author claiming to be inspired by god does not mean he actually is. Considering the last point, it is possible none of the holy books are divinely inspired. How does the believer know if the claims of inspiration are valid?

I welcome all who intend to address (or comment on) these points, and I look forward to your thoughts. : :

Scriptures are written words that came from the Word of God that was spoken into the minds of God's prophets and saints. However, the original written words by the prophets and saints got into the hands of religious heathens who had no idea what the Word of God was. These religious heathens destroyed most of the original writings of the prophets and saints but stole some of them to add to their religious traditions and pagan ideas that they were familiar with. This is why religious people do not understand any of the biblical prophecies in the Old Testament and tell their newcomers to read the New Testament instead which is loaded with religious traditions and pagan ideas.

Hi, Brad! I hope all is going well with you!
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 5:35:13 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:48:46 AM, bulproof wrote:
bog

bog repeatedly gets his ideological butt kicked, so he just changes his user name and tries again!

Same result for him each time!
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 5:54:15 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
This will be an extension of a conversation started here:

http://www.debate.org...

Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"? It is held by some that the Bible is divinely inspired and this passage is often cited:

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.


https://www.biblegateway.com...

If the Bible is held to be the word of god from this passage then I see multiple problems:

1) The Bible and the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the book of Timothy was written. It stands to reason that Timothy would not have been referring to either and instead would have been referring to established canon. This has serious implications for the grounding of the New Testament (and Christianity). If the NT is not inspired by god does it carry the same weight? No, of course not. We might no longer accept Jesus as the son of god since he is advocated no where other than the NT (or sources influenced by the books of the NT and/or Christians) as such. We might no longer assume NT prophecy as valid. I think you get the idea...
author claiming to be inspired by god does not mean he actually is. Considering the last point, it is possible none of the holy books are divinely inspired. How does the believer know if the claims of inspiration are valid?

I think you make too much of this. We do not maintain that one must possess a so-called "official canon", and the fact is that a "canon" existed long before there was an "official canon."

The error, I believe, is here:

"The Bible and the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the book of Timothy was written."

That's a sort-of play on words. 90% of the NT was almost universally accepted way before the "hundreds of years" came about, and I know of no essential doctrine that is solely dependent upon the other 10%.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 6:09:04 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 5:54:15 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
This will be an extension of a conversation started here:

http://www.debate.org...

Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"? It is held by some that the Bible is divinely inspired and this passage is often cited:

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.


https://www.biblegateway.com...

If the Bible is held to be the word of god from this passage then I see multiple problems:

1) The Bible and the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the book of Timothy was written. It stands to reason that Timothy would not have been referring to either and instead would have been referring to established canon. This has serious implications for the grounding of the New Testament (and Christianity). If the NT is not inspired by god does it carry the same weight? No, of course not. We might no longer accept Jesus as the son of god since he is advocated no where other than the NT (or sources influenced by the books of the NT and/or Christians) as such. We might no longer assume NT prophecy as valid. I think you get the idea...
author claiming to be inspired by god does not mean he actually is. Considering the last point, it is possible none of the holy books are divinely inspired. How does the believer know if the claims of inspiration are valid?

I think you make too much of this. We do not maintain that one must possess a so-called "official canon", and the fact is that a "canon" existed long before there was an "official canon."

The error, I believe, is here:

"The Bible and the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the book of Timothy was written."

That's a sort-of play on words. 90% of the NT was almost universally accepted way before the "hundreds of years" came about, and I know of no essential doctrine that is solely dependent upon the other 10%.

You are begging the question. Define "essential doctrine". Isn't what you are referring to merely what was retained when the Bible was put together and anything else (and there was plenty) rejected as heresy, or at least non-essential?
jdmorgan
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 6:34:09 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 5:35:09 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:38:02 AM, jdmorgan wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
This will be an extension of a conversation started here:

http://www.debate.org...

Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"? It is held by some that the Bible is divinely inspired and this passage is often cited:

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.


https://www.biblegateway.com...

If the Bible is held to be the word of god from this passage then I see multiple problems:

1) The Bible and the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the book of Timothy was written. It stands to reason that Timothy would not have been referring to either and instead would have been referring to established canon. This has serious implications for the grounding of the New Testament (and Christianity). If the NT is not inspired by god does it carry the same weight? No, of course not. We might no longer accept Jesus as the son of god since he is advocated no where other than the NT (or sources influenced by the books of the NT and/or Christians) as such. We might no longer assume NT prophecy as valid. I think you get the idea...

2) Other holy books make similar claims. If claims of divine inspiration are accepted at face value, then all books which do so must be accepted as divinely inspired as well. This would lead us to the conclusion that there are multiple gods. Shouldn't we be following the edicts, morality, teachings of each and not just one?

3) An author claiming to be inspired by god does not mean he actually is. Considering the last point, it is possible none of the holy books are divinely inspired. How does the believer know if the claims of inspiration are valid?

I welcome all who intend to address (or comment on) these points, and I look forward to your thoughts. : :

Scriptures are written words that came from the Word of God that was spoken into the minds of God's prophets and saints. However, the original written words by the prophets and saints got into the hands of religious heathens who had no idea what the Word of God was. These religious heathens destroyed most of the original writings of the prophets and saints but stole some of them to add to their religious traditions and pagan ideas that they were familiar with. This is why religious people do not understand any of the biblical prophecies in the Old Testament and tell their newcomers to read the New Testament instead which is loaded with religious traditions and pagan ideas.

Hi, Brad! I hope all is going well with you! : :

Thank you my friend. Everything is going very well with me, my family, friends, etc. I have to come in here once in awhile to keep some of these theists straightened out because they sure are confused at what they observe.
jdmorgan
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 6:46:47 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 5:35:13 AM, Composer wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:48:46 AM, bulproof wrote:
bog

bog repeatedly gets his ideological butt kicked, so he just changes his user name and tries again!

Same result for him each time! : :

It's impossible to get the Truth kicked but Airmax doesn't believe that. He thought he could keep it out of this forum. LOL !!!!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 7:45:38 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"?
It mightn't surprise many members to hear a 'no' from me. My reasoning's a bit different from Skep's though, so here it is:

There's no way to independently authenticate God as author or inspirer of Christian canon, so the only testable implication of this claim is whether any scriptures in the Bible are uncannily accurate, given where and when they were (probably) written.

The two areas where accuracy would be most beneficial and readily confirmable in a guidebook for humanity are in the physical nature of the universe, and any insights related to human medical, psychological or social welfare. If most or all of the Bible were inspired by a wise, benign agency, it'd be reasonable expect it to make such critical information explicit so it'd be useful, and get it right so it'd be beneficial.

Yet in all relevant cases I can think of, Christian canon is either:

1) Inaccurate -- it has gotten key claims wrong;
2) Duplicated -- similar insights were recorded earlier elsewhere;
3) Vague -- Christian scholars themselves don't interpret it consistently; or
4) Incomplete -- critical insights acquired later are conspicuously missing from explicit mention.

I believe these four deficiencies cover virtually all relevant canonical thought Christians normally claim their canon has brought the world. (Which is not to say that later Christian thought has not contributed more usefully.)

That leaves only metaphysical thought, which no Christian can validate or verify, and a few prophecies which are unfulfilled, or too vague to be consistently interpreted and independently confirmed, or open-ended and thus unfalsifiable, and are in any case statistically insignificant since there aren't enough of them to draw a favourable conclusion.

So not only is there no evidence that God inspired any significant Christian scripture, there's strong evidence that the information underpinning Christian canon is ignorant, unoriginal, poorly-communicated, and inadequate for human needs.

I think Christians would do better to claim that God inspired Christian philosophers and scientists than Biblical authors -- the former have contributed far more measurable benefit than the latter to human welfare.
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 11:56:10 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 6:09:04 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 5/9/2016 5:54:15 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
This will be an extension of a conversation started here:

http://www.debate.org...

Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"? It is held by some that the Bible is divinely inspired and this passage is often cited:

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.


https://www.biblegateway.com...

If the Bible is held to be the word of god from this passage then I see multiple problems:

1) The Bible and the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the book of Timothy was written. It stands to reason that Timothy would not have been referring to either and instead would have been referring to established canon. This has serious implications for the grounding of the New Testament (and Christianity). If the NT is not inspired by god does it carry the same weight? No, of course not. We might no longer accept Jesus as the son of god since he is advocated no where other than the NT (or sources influenced by the books of the NT and/or Christians) as such. We might no longer assume NT prophecy as valid. I think you get the idea...
author claiming to be inspired by god does not mean he actually is. Considering the last point, it is possible none of the holy books are divinely inspired. How does the believer know if the claims of inspiration are valid?

I think you make too much of this. We do not maintain that one must possess a so-called "official canon", and the fact is that a "canon" existed long before there was an "official canon."

The error, I believe, is here:

"The Bible and the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the book of Timothy was written."

That's a sort-of play on words. 90% of the NT was almost universally accepted way before the "hundreds of years" came about, and I know of no essential doctrine that is solely dependent upon the other 10%.

You are begging the question. Define "essential doctrine".

Those major doctrines - major tenets of Christianity - that are taught in the 90% of what is now known as the New Testament that was almost universally accepted as inspired.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 12:40:06 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 11:56:10 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/9/2016 6:09:04 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 5/9/2016 5:54:15 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
This will be an extension of a conversation started here:

http://www.debate.org...

Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"? It is held by some that the Bible is divinely inspired and this passage is often cited:

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.


https://www.biblegateway.com...

If the Bible is held to be the word of god from this passage then I see multiple problems:

1) The Bible and the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the book of Timothy was written. It stands to reason that Timothy would not have been referring to either and instead would have been referring to established canon. This has serious implications for the grounding of the New Testament (and Christianity). If the NT is not inspired by god does it carry the same weight? No, of course not. We might no longer accept Jesus as the son of god since he is advocated no where other than the NT (or sources influenced by the books of the NT and/or Christians) as such. We might no longer assume NT prophecy as valid. I think you get the idea...
author claiming to be inspired by god does not mean he actually is. Considering the last point, it is possible none of the holy books are divinely inspired. How does the believer know if the claims of inspiration are valid?

I think you make too much of this. We do not maintain that one must possess a so-called "official canon", and the fact is that a "canon" existed long before there was an "official canon."

The error, I believe, is here:

"The Bible and the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the book of Timothy was written."

That's a sort-of play on words. 90% of the NT was almost universally accepted way before the "hundreds of years" came about, and I know of no essential doctrine that is solely dependent upon the other 10%.

You are begging the question. Define "essential doctrine".

Those major doctrines - major tenets of Christianity - that are taught in the 90% of what is now known as the New Testament that was almost universally accepted as inspired.

I think you miss the point. Who determined what was essential and when was that ratified? As the OP stated, there was plenty of scripture around apart from what made it into canon and a great deal of it was considered divinely inspired by someone or other, otherwise it would not have survived. Timothy states that all scripture is inspired by God. You seem to be making a circular argument. The essential doctrine is that which was accepted and made it into the Bible and the Bible was collated with only (predominantly) essential doctrine.

Isn't what you are referring to merely what was retained when the Bible was put together and anything else (and there was plenty) rejected as heresy, or at least non-essential?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 12:47:03 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 5:54:15 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
This will be an extension of a conversation started here:

http://www.debate.org...

Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"? It is held by some that the Bible is divinely inspired and this passage is often cited:

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.


https://www.biblegateway.com...

If the Bible is held to be the word of god from this passage then I see multiple problems:

1) The Bible and the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the book of Timothy was written. It stands to reason that Timothy would not have been referring to either and instead would have been referring to established canon. This has serious implications for the grounding of the New Testament (and Christianity). If the NT is not inspired by god does it carry the same weight? No, of course not. We might no longer accept Jesus as the son of god since he is advocated no where other than the NT (or sources influenced by the books of the NT and/or Christians) as such. We might no longer assume NT prophecy as valid. I think you get the idea...
author claiming to be inspired by god does not mean he actually is. Considering the last point, it is possible none of the holy books are divinely inspired. How does the believer know if the claims of inspiration are valid?

I think you make too much of this. We do not maintain that one must possess a so-called "official canon", and the fact is that a "canon" existed long before there was an "official canon."

The error, I believe, is here:

"The Bible and the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the book of Timothy was written."

That's a sort-of play on words. 90% of the NT was almost universally accepted way before the "hundreds of years" came about, and I know of no essential doctrine that is solely dependent upon the other 10%.

If you're going to argue that, then it might also be argued that Timothy was referring to what are currently non-canonical books of the Bible. I think my original argument makes the most sense - He would be referring to established canon.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 12:48:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 12:47:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/9/2016 5:54:15 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
This will be an extension of a conversation started here:

http://www.debate.org...

Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"? It is held by some that the Bible is divinely inspired and this passage is often cited:

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.


https://www.biblegateway.com...

If the Bible is held to be the word of god from this passage then I see multiple problems:

1) The Bible and the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the book of Timothy was written. It stands to reason that Timothy would not have been referring to either and instead would have been referring to established canon. This has serious implications for the grounding of the New Testament (and Christianity). If the NT is not inspired by god does it carry the same weight? No, of course not. We might no longer accept Jesus as the son of god since he is advocated no where other than the NT (or sources influenced by the books of the NT and/or Christians) as such. We might no longer assume NT prophecy as valid. I think you get the idea...
author claiming to be inspired by god does not mean he actually is. Considering the last point, it is possible none of the holy books are divinely inspired. How does the believer know if the claims of inspiration are valid?

I think you make too much of this. We do not maintain that one must possess a so-called "official canon", and the fact is that a "canon" existed long before there was an "official canon."

The error, I believe, is here:

"The Bible and the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the book of Timothy was written."

That's a sort-of play on words. 90% of the NT was almost universally accepted way before the "hundreds of years" came about, and I know of no essential doctrine that is solely dependent upon the other 10%.

If you're going to argue that, then it might also be argued that Timothy was referring to what are currently non-canonical books of the Bible. I think my original argument makes the most sense - He would be referring to established canon.

Then why would Peter refer to things Paul wrote as "scripture"?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 1:35:29 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 12:48:14 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/9/2016 12:47:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/9/2016 5:54:15 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
This will be an extension of a conversation started here:

http://www.debate.org...

Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"? It is held by some that the Bible is divinely inspired and this passage is often cited:

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.


https://www.biblegateway.com...

If the Bible is held to be the word of god from this passage then I see multiple problems:

1) The Bible and the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the book of Timothy was written. It stands to reason that Timothy would not have been referring to either and instead would have been referring to established canon. This has serious implications for the grounding of the New Testament (and Christianity). If the NT is not inspired by god does it carry the same weight? No, of course not. We might no longer accept Jesus as the son of god since he is advocated no where other than the NT (or sources influenced by the books of the NT and/or Christians) as such. We might no longer assume NT prophecy as valid. I think you get the idea...
author claiming to be inspired by god does not mean he actually is. Considering the last point, it is possible none of the holy books are divinely inspired. How does the believer know if the claims of inspiration are valid?

I think you make too much of this. We do not maintain that one must possess a so-called "official canon", and the fact is that a "canon" existed long before there was an "official canon."

The error, I believe, is here:

"The Bible and the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the book of Timothy was written."

That's a sort-of play on words. 90% of the NT was almost universally accepted way before the "hundreds of years" came about, and I know of no essential doctrine that is solely dependent upon the other 10%.

If you're going to argue that, then it might also be argued that Timothy was referring to what are currently non-canonical books of the Bible. I think my original argument makes the most sense - He would be referring to established canon.

Then why would Peter refer to things Paul wrote as "scripture"?

Even if we accept Peter is advocating Paul's writing as scripture, it does not mean Paul was thinking of his own words as scripture. That would pretty arrogant of Paul, don't ya think?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 2:11:18 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 7:45:38 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"?
It mightn't surprise many members to hear a 'no' from me. My reasoning's a bit different from Skep's though, so here it is:

There's no way to independently authenticate God as author or inspirer of Christian canon, so the only testable implication of this claim is whether any scriptures in the Bible are uncannily accurate, given where and when they were (probably) written.

The two areas where accuracy would be most beneficial and readily confirmable in a guidebook for humanity are in the physical nature of the universe, and any insights related to human medical, psychological or social welfare. If most or all of the Bible were inspired by a wise, benign agency, it'd be reasonable expect it to make such critical information explicit so it'd be useful, and get it right so it'd be beneficial.

Yet in all relevant cases I can think of, Christian canon is either:

1) Inaccurate -- it has gotten key claims wrong;
2) Duplicated -- similar insights were recorded earlier elsewhere;
3) Vague -- Christian scholars themselves don't interpret it consistently; or
4) Incomplete -- critical insights acquired later are conspicuously missing from explicit mention.

I believe these four deficiencies cover virtually all relevant canonical thought Christians normally claim their canon has brought the world. (Which is not to say that later Christian thought has not contributed more usefully.)

That leaves only metaphysical thought, which no Christian can validate or verify, and a few prophecies which are unfulfilled, or too vague to be consistently interpreted and independently confirmed, or open-ended and thus unfalsifiable, and are in any case statistically insignificant since there aren't enough of them to draw a favourable conclusion.

So not only is there no evidence that God inspired any significant Christian scripture, there's strong evidence that the information underpinning Christian canon is ignorant, unoriginal, poorly-communicated, and inadequate for human needs.

I think Christians would do better to claim that God inspired Christian philosophers and scientists than Biblical authors -- the former have contributed far more measurable benefit than the latter to human welfare.

Well, you beat me to it! I was expecting to get into these points when the "prophetic/scientific accuracy proves the validity of the Bible" argument came up. :-)

I think your last paragraph is interesting and true.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 2:57:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
This will be an extension of a conversation started here:

http://www.debate.org...

Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"? It is held by some that the Bible is divinely inspired and this passage is often cited:

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.


https://www.biblegateway.com...

If the Bible is held to be the word of god from this passage then I see multiple problems:

1) The Bible and the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the book of Timothy was written. It stands to reason that Timothy would not have been referring to either and instead would have been referring to established canon. This has serious implications for the grounding of the New Testament (and Christianity). If the NT is not inspired by god does it carry the same weight? No, of course not. We might no longer accept Jesus as the son of god since he is advocated no where other than the NT (or sources influenced by the books of the NT and/or Christians) as such. We might no longer assume NT prophecy as valid. I think you get the idea...

2) Other holy books make similar claims. If claims of divine inspiration are accepted at face value, then all books which do so must be accepted as divinely inspired as well. This would lead us to the conclusion that there are multiple gods. Shouldn't we be following the edicts, morality, teachings of each and not just one?

3) An author claiming to be inspired by god does not mean he actually is. Considering the last point, it is possible none of the holy books are divinely inspired. How does the believer know if the claims of inspiration are valid?

I welcome all who intend to address (or comment on) these points, and I look forward to your thoughts.

The fact that we are debating the accuracy of the Bible demonstrates that it has ample room for doubt at minimum. If a perfect god wrote a book, it stands to reason it would be perfectly communicated to a degree that there would be no doubt, no inconsistencies and no outlandish claims without explanation.

Even Christians argue about what they consider important points. Is their god so incompetent that he doesn't know how to be clear about what he wants to say? Is he so impotent that he cant protect his book from being mistranslated and misunderstood?
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 3:04:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"?
Nope.

It is held by some that the Bible is divinely inspired and this passage is often cited:
"The Bible says that the Bible is the word of God." Circular reasoning FAIL.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 3:51:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 2:57:45 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
This will be an extension of a conversation started here:

http://www.debate.org...

Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"? It is held by some that the Bible is divinely inspired and this passage is often cited:

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.


https://www.biblegateway.com...

If the Bible is held to be the word of god from this passage then I see multiple problems:

1) The Bible and the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the book of Timothy was written. It stands to reason that Timothy would not have been referring to either and instead would have been referring to established canon. This has serious implications for the grounding of the New Testament (and Christianity). If the NT is not inspired by god does it carry the same weight? No, of course not. We might no longer accept Jesus as the son of god since he is advocated no where other than the NT (or sources influenced by the books of the NT and/or Christians) as such. We might no longer assume NT prophecy as valid. I think you get the idea...

2) Other holy books make similar claims. If claims of divine inspiration are accepted at face value, then all books which do so must be accepted as divinely inspired as well. This would lead us to the conclusion that there are multiple gods. Shouldn't we be following the edicts, morality, teachings of each and not just one?

3) An author claiming to be inspired by god does not mean he actually is. Considering the last point, it is possible none of the holy books are divinely inspired. How does the believer know if the claims of inspiration are valid?

I welcome all who intend to address (or comment on) these points, and I look forward to your thoughts.

The fact that we are debating the accuracy of the Bible demonstrates that it has ample room for doubt at minimum. If a perfect god wrote a book, it stands to reason it would be perfectly communicated to a degree that there would be no doubt, no inconsistencies and no outlandish claims without explanation.

Even Christians argue about what they consider important points. Is their god so incompetent that he doesn't know how to be clear about what he wants to say? Is he so impotent that he cant protect his book from being mistranslated and misunderstood?

The method of using fallible humans to convey a message from perfect god seems doomed to failure. However, this also seems like it may be an argument from incredulity. So let us assume a perfect god might do such a thing for the sake of the argument.

I think you are on to something when you suggest innacuracies are damning. I tend to think statements in the Bible that are not supported by reality or specifically worded prophecies that have failed are a clear illustration of this.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 3:56:27 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
This will be an extension of a conversation started here:

http://www.debate.org...

Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"? It is held by some that the Bible is divinely inspired and this passage is often cited:

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.


https://www.biblegateway.com...

If the Bible is held to be the word of god from this passage then I see multiple problems:

1) The Bible and the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the book of Timothy was written. It stands to reason that Timothy would not have been referring to either and instead would have been referring to established canon. This has serious implications for the grounding of the New Testament (and Christianity). If the NT is not inspired by god does it carry the same weight? No, of course not. We might no longer accept Jesus as the son of god since he is advocated no where other than the NT (or sources influenced by the books of the NT and/or Christians) as such. We might no longer assume NT prophecy as valid. I think you get the idea...

2) Other holy books make similar claims. If claims of divine inspiration are accepted at face value, then all books which do so must be accepted as divinely inspired as well. This would lead us to the conclusion that there are multiple gods. Shouldn't we be following the edicts, morality, teachings of each and not just one?

3) An author claiming to be inspired by god does not mean he actually is. Considering the last point, it is possible none of the holy books are divinely inspired. How does the believer know if the claims of inspiration are valid?

I welcome all who intend to address (or comment on) these points, and I look forward to your thoughts.

Any book that has undergone the revisions, redactions, deletions, and so many other changes to suit the concepts of a small group of men in positions of authority could not be in any way inspired by a perfect deity. Such a being's words would be perfect at the outset and could never contain all of the conflicts and contradictions that the Christian holy book does.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:25:23 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 3:04:56 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"?
Nope.

It is held by some that the Bible is divinely inspired and this passage is often cited:
"The Bible says that the Bible is the word of God." Circular reasoning FAIL.

Well, to be fair, the Bible is a collection of books that have been strapped together many hundreds of years after they were written. So, it is not necessarily a circular argument. One book can make claims about other books and there be no circularity provided that the books were not written by the same author. So, the real objection would be Timothy (written by Paul) cannot advocate most of the NT without being a circular argument (since Paul wrote much of the NT). At best, this passage can only advocate some books of the NT being divinely inspired, but I consider that to be dubious as well -Im not aware of the other books of the NT being considered "scripture" when Timothy was written.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:29:40 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:25:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:04:56 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"?
Nope.

It is held by some that the Bible is divinely inspired and this passage is often cited:
"The Bible says that the Bible is the word of God." Circular reasoning FAIL.

Well, to be fair, the Bible is a collection of books that have been strapped together many hundreds of years after they were written. So, it is not necessarily a circular argument. One book can make claims about other books and there be no circularity provided that the books were not written by the same author. So, the real objection would be Timothy (written by Paul) cannot advocate most of the NT without being a circular argument (since Paul wrote much of the NT). At best, this passage can only advocate some books of the NT being divinely inspired, but I consider that to be dubious as well -Im not aware of the other books of the NT being considered "scripture" when Timothy was written.

1: Invisible unicorns exist.
2: "1" is divinely inspired.
3: "2" is divinely inspired.
...
3245356246: "3245356245" is divinely inspired.

There's a problem. How do I know that "3245356246" is divinely inspired? If I can't prove that then the whole chain fails!
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:43:39 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
This will be an extension of a conversation started here:

http://www.debate.org...

Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"? It is held by some that the Bible is divinely inspired and this passage is often cited:

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.


https://www.biblegateway.com...

If the Bible is held to be the word of god from this passage then I see multiple problems:

1) The Bible and the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the book of Timothy was written. It stands to reason that Timothy would not have been referring to either and instead would have been referring to established canon. This has serious implications for the grounding of the New Testament (and Christianity). If the NT is not inspired by god does it carry the same weight? No, of course not. We might no longer accept Jesus as the son of god since he is advocated no where other than the NT (or sources influenced by the books of the NT and/or Christians) as such. We might no longer assume NT prophecy as valid. I think you get the idea...

2) Other holy books make similar claims. If claims of divine inspiration are accepted at face value, then all books which do so must be accepted as divinely inspired as well. This would lead us to the conclusion that there are multiple gods. Shouldn't we be following the edicts, morality, teachings of each and not just one?

3) An author claiming to be inspired by god does not mean he actually is. Considering the last point, it is possible none of the holy books are divinely inspired. How does the believer know if the claims of inspiration are valid?

I welcome all who intend to address (or comment on) these points, and I look forward to your thoughts.

The word 'scripture' means God breathed.

It doesn't refer to the collection of books that account the words of God. So some of the stuff in the Bible is a historical account, some the lies of the transcribers, and some the advise of men.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:56:44 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:29:40 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:25:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:04:56 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"?
Nope.

It is held by some that the Bible is divinely inspired and this passage is often cited:
"The Bible says that the Bible is the word of God." Circular reasoning FAIL.

Well, to be fair, the Bible is a collection of books that have been strapped together many hundreds of years after they were written. So, it is not necessarily a circular argument. One book can make claims about other books and there be no circularity provided that the books were not written by the same author. So, the real objection would be Timothy (written by Paul) cannot advocate most of the NT without being a circular argument (since Paul wrote much of the NT). At best, this passage can only advocate some books of the NT being divinely inspired, but I consider that to be dubious as well -Im not aware of the other books of the NT being considered "scripture" when Timothy was written.

1: Invisible unicorns exist.
2: "1" is divinely inspired.
3: "2" is divinely inspired.
...
3245356246: "3245356245" is divinely inspired.

There's a problem. How do I know that "3245356246" is divinely inspired? If I can't prove that then the whole chain fails!

Would you illustrate how this applies to the Bible? (I'm not disagreeing, btw)
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
user13579
Posts: 822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 5:01:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:56:44 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:29:40 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:25:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:04:56 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"?
Nope.

It is held by some that the Bible is divinely inspired and this passage is often cited:
"The Bible says that the Bible is the word of God." Circular reasoning FAIL.

Well, to be fair, the Bible is a collection of books that have been strapped together many hundreds of years after they were written. So, it is not necessarily a circular argument. One book can make claims about other books and there be no circularity provided that the books were not written by the same author. So, the real objection would be Timothy (written by Paul) cannot advocate most of the NT without being a circular argument (since Paul wrote much of the NT). At best, this passage can only advocate some books of the NT being divinely inspired, but I consider that to be dubious as well -Im not aware of the other books of the NT being considered "scripture" when Timothy was written.

1: Invisible unicorns exist.
2: "1" is divinely inspired.
3: "2" is divinely inspired.
...
3245356246: "3245356245" is divinely inspired.

There's a problem. How do I know that "3245356246" is divinely inspired? If I can't prove that then the whole chain fails!

Would you illustrate how this applies to the Bible? (I'm not disagreeing, btw)

Book B can say Book A is divinely inspired. Well, why should I believe Book B? You have to prove the Book B is divinely inspired, with another book! You would need an infinite number of books, or you can make it circular. Like Book A says that book B is divinely inspired, and Book B says that Book A is divinely inspired.
Science in a nutshell:
"Facts are neither true nor false. They simply are."
"All scientific knowledge is provisional. Even facts are provisional."
"We can be absolutely certain that we have a moon, we can be absolutely certain that water is made out of H2O, and we can be absolutely certain that the Earth is a sphere!"
"Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, none absolutely certain."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 6:06:21 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 5:01:10 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:56:44 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:29:40 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:25:23 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:04:56 PM, user13579 wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:

Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"?
Nope.

It is held by some that the Bible is divinely inspired and this passage is often cited:
"The Bible says that the Bible is the word of God." Circular reasoning FAIL.

Well, to be fair, the Bible is a collection of books that have been strapped together many hundreds of years after they were written. So, it is not necessarily a circular argument. One book can make claims about other books and there be no circularity provided that the books were not written by the same author. So, the real objection would be Timothy (written by Paul) cannot advocate most of the NT without being a circular argument (since Paul wrote much of the NT). At best, this passage can only advocate some books of the NT being divinely inspired, but I consider that to be dubious as well -Im not aware of the other books of the NT being considered "scripture" when Timothy was written.

1: Invisible unicorns exist.
2: "1" is divinely inspired.
3: "2" is divinely inspired.
...
3245356246: "3245356245" is divinely inspired.

There's a problem. How do I know that "3245356246" is divinely inspired? If I can't prove that then the whole chain fails!

Would you illustrate how this applies to the Bible? (I'm not disagreeing, btw)

Book B can say Book A is divinely inspired. Well, why should I believe Book B? You have to prove the Book B is divinely inspired, with another book! You would need an infinite number of books, or you can make it circular. Like Book A says that book B is divinely inspired, and Book B says that Book A is divinely inspired.

Agreed. Claiming something is divinely inspired doesn't make it so.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 6:19:12 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:43:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
The word 'scripture' means God breathed.

Actually, it derives from the Latin scriptus, past participle of scribere, "write" [http://www.etymonline.com...]
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 6:25:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:43:39 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:04:13 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
This will be an extension of a conversation started here:

http://www.debate.org...

Can the Bible be justified as "the word of God"? It is held by some that the Bible is divinely inspired and this passage is often cited:

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.


https://www.biblegateway.com...

If the Bible is held to be the word of god from this passage then I see multiple problems:

1) The Bible and the New Testament didn't exist until hundreds of years after the book of Timothy was written. It stands to reason that Timothy would not have been referring to either and instead would have been referring to established canon. This has serious implications for the grounding of the New Testament (and Christianity). If the NT is not inspired by god does it carry the same weight? No, of course not. We might no longer accept Jesus as the son of god since he is advocated no where other than the NT (or sources influenced by the books of the NT and/or Christians) as such. We might no longer assume NT prophecy as valid. I think you get the idea...

2) Other holy books make similar claims. If claims of divine inspiration are accepted at face value, then all books which do so must be accepted as divinely inspired as well. This would lead us to the conclusion that there are multiple gods. Shouldn't we be following the edicts, morality, teachings of each and not just one?

3) An author claiming to be inspired by god does not mean he actually is. Considering the last point, it is possible none of the holy books are divinely inspired. How does the believer know if the claims of inspiration are valid?

I welcome all who intend to address (or comment on) these points, and I look forward to your thoughts.

The word 'scripture' means God breathed.

It doesn't refer to the collection of books that account the words of God. So some of the stuff in the Bible is a historical account, some the lies of the transcribers, and some the advise of men.

u talking now as a muslim
Never fart near dog