The Bible - God's Word or Man's? - What Convinces You?

by sweet pea 64 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Awakened07

  Everyone [who believes in it] seems to agree it is inspired, but then many choose for themselves exactly which passages were inspired and which weren't, and in the process they may 'overlap' and (unknowingly) dismiss other believers' chosen passages. Which means - people are often choosing what is inspired, not God. And they all believe their pick of inspired passages is the correct one.

  Some people, when pressed, will be content as long as they can keep Jesus - everything else in the Bible can be in a state of "wishy washy-ness" for all they care. But Jesus didn't write anything of his own, and if the quotes attributed to him were recorded correctly, he gave great importance to OT stories and history.

  I can't help but think that if we had all grown up in a different part of the world, we would be discussing the veracity of a whole other God and a whole other book (or books) in intricate detail. And it would be equally evident to a lot of posters that that book was clearly inspired.
• 

  nvrgnbk

  Your best post ever, Awakened07, IMO.
• 

  Grammy

  I can't help but think that if we had all grown up in a different part of the world, we would be discussing the veracity of a whole other God and a whole other book (or books) in intricate detail. And it would be equally evident to a lot of posters that that book was clearly inspired.

  I think the Bible was written by man with no inspiration from any God...I know for a fact that mere mortal men were used to pick and choose what went into the Bible as we know it and they also chose what was left out. Do some research on the First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church, held in 325
• 

  Sad emo

  Everyone [who believes in it] seems to agree it is inspired, but then many choose for themselves exactly which passages were inspired and which weren't, and in the process they may 'overlap' and (unknowingly) dismiss other believers' chosen passages. Which means - people are often choosing what is inspired, not God. And they all believe their pick of inspired passages is the correct one.

  Good point Awakened07

  In some way, to address that (and possibly nvr), could believers reasonably take the following line of reasoning to the 'all Scripture is God-breathed' (literal Greek translation which is far better imo) argument.

  God is eternal - past, present, future.

  He's alive/existent - therefore he is eternally 'breathing' the Scripture (do we wanna throw another tangent in here, the Scripture Paul spoke of didn't include the NT!)

  Is this breathing of Scripture as fixed as the written words on the pages?

  The answer could be no, it's ongoing - Words can't (or only very little) change or move out of the context in which they were originally written, it is the God-breathing on them which brings them to life.

  Because the written word is brought to life, this is why Christians might have different views - it's what God is breathing through particular passages to them at any one time (and yes some misinterpret or put their own understanding to it, claiming it to be God's). Or some might say particular passages aren't God-breathed at all - could this just mean that God doesn't speak to them through those particular passages.

  Sorry if it sounds a bit confused - rather like my head today
• 

  dawg

  Grammy,

  That's what I'm talking about, the NT has been redefined myrids of times, what should go in and what to exclude... Read Paul and compare to Jesus... two completely different ideas altogether. Even when Paul confronted the apostles, he was told to go easy on the gentiles-he wasw a hard line Jew that used to kill christians... how are we to know if he (Paul) was insane or not, he was a murderer after all.

  But youcould go on forever, why does God tell Moses to kill childern for instance, how could a loving god tell someone to kill innocent childern and then say to love you neighbor as yourself, love you enemy. Two different entities altoghter.
• 

  Maddie

  Hi sweet pea

  The plot thickens! I agree with what the other posters say about the ifs and buts as to whether the bible is God's literal word or not. I always think with my heart more than my head, that may sound illogical or even be derided by some. So my honest answer is that regardless of all good arguments I do still believe in the teachings of the Bible being inspired by God.

  Maddie
• 

  nvrgnbk

  Grammy,

  That's what I'm talking about, the NT has been redefined myrids of times, what should go in and what to exclude... Read Paul and compare to Jesus... two completely different ideas altogether. Even when Paul confronted the apostles, he was told to go easy on the gentiles-he wasw a hard line Jew that used to kill christians... how are we to know if he (Paul) was insane or not, he was a murderer after all.

  But youcould go on forever, why does God tell Moses to kill childern for instance, how could a loving god tell someone to kill innocent childern and then say to love you neighbor as yourself, love you enemy. Two different entities altoghter.

  So my honest answer is that regardless of all good arguments I do still believe in the teachings of the Bible being inspired by God.

  Maddie

  Why?

  Because the alternative is overwhelmingly frightening?
• 

  Awakened07

  Is this breathing of Scripture as fixed as the written words on the pages?

  The answer could be no, it's ongoing - Words can't (or only very little) change or move out of the context in which they were originally written, it is the God-breathing on them which brings them to life.

  Because the written word is brought to life, this is why Christians might have different views - it's what God is breathing through particular passages to them at any one time (and yes some misinterpret or put their own understanding to it, claiming it to be God's). Or some might say particular passages aren't God-breathed at all - could this just mean that God doesn't speak to them through those particular passages.

  I understand your position and argument, and I don't think it's stupid or anything - not when one presupposes that [the biblical] God exists.

  But - even so, the question remains; how do we choose which group or person has indeed read the Bible correctly for their time? Who is it that has found "God's breath"? As is evident from this forum, many different stances develop, like OBVES and JCanon. Sure, they may not represent anyone but themselves, but to them they have the absolute Truth. And two different "Truths" between them, no less. So - how do we choose among the myriads of understandings?

  Do we have to choose? Perhaps not. Perhaps - if God exists, sincerity on a personal level is the most important part. That thought should perhaps stand there alone, as it is rather 'beautiful' - but I can't help but add: Many bad acts have been done in the name of religious sincerity.
• 

  Grammy

  Dawg said...

  That's what I'm talking about, the NT has been redefined myrids of times, what should go in and what to exclude...

  This is only my opinion and I don't claim to be really intelligent lol

  But..My understanding of the motives of the Nicene council was that they only wanted to include books that fit in with their particular agenda and interpretation of what the religion was supposed to be and how its followers were supposed to be. The Gnostic texts were different enough from what they wanted that the had no intention of even considering them.

  That is why there is so much in the new testament about aspects of Christ's life in his early and formative years that is not there, even in the major Gospels. There are texts that include information, but they were not included in the bible because they contained information, and stories about Christ's life that portrayed his as somewhat less perfect than they wanted people to believe. I believe it is the gospel of writer Timothy or Thomas that contains some of those accounts and was thus not included, allowing them to keep the illusion that Christ was beyond all human reactions, desires and the like.

  Their decisions were motivated more by their own agenda than any effort to have a complete inclusion of all available information, they only included what they wanted people to know.
• 

  dawg

  And Grammy,

  Starting in Nicea in 325, until many years later, their agenda was to prove that the Christ was God, not a god but God himself. The Gopsel according to Thomas doesn't indicate that, nor the Gospel of Mary... both left out of the NT... WHy? Agenda maybe?