Proof the bible was NOT inspired by god.

by Comatose 22 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Ding

  I don't see the differences in the baptism accounts as signficant at all. In each account God the Father speaks from heaven identifying Jesus as his beloved Son and saying that He is well pleased with him. Were the statements made primarily TO Jesus with the crowd hearing them or primarily to the crowd with Jesus hearing them? I don't think that matters at all. What matters is what was being conveyed both to Jesus and to the crowd about the Father's opinion of Jesus. In that respect, the accounts are in total accord.

  The Greek language of the day did not have quotation marks. The narrative genre in which the gospels were written did not require the authors to try to repeat statements word for word as if they were court reporters taking down testimony. The standard was to report accurately what was being conveyed.

  There's no contradiction in what God conveyed. One writer doesn't report, for example, that God made this statement about John the Baptist while another says he was speaking about Jesus. Likewise, one writer doesn't report the Father as saying that Jesus is His beloved son in whom He is well pleased while another claims that He said that He disapproves of Jesus' performance in some regard. Those would be genuine contradictions.

  To give a modern example of similar insignificant differences in reporting, one reporter might say, "President Reagan today demanded that Mikhail Gorbachev demolish the Berlin Wall." A second might say, "President Reagan exhorted Secretary General Gorbachev to remove the wall." A third might say, "The crowd roared when Reagan exclaimed that Gorbachev should tear down the Berlin wall." A fourth might say, "Standing at the Brandenburg gate, Ronald Reagan exclaimed, 'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!'"

  There are a number of differences in those four accounts. Are any of the reports inconsistent regarding what really happened? Reading them, would you say, "The reporters' accounts are hopelessly contradictory. They can't agree on exactly who said what or whether he was really addressing the crowd or Gorbachev. The whole thing shakes my faith in the accuracy of reporters. If I can't trust them in this, I'm no longer going to believe a thing they say"?
• 

  iCeltic

  Unlike any (sane) human, god sat by and watched (he also arranged) the torture and murder of his son in order to forgive a debt to himself. It's polar opposite to love and sanity, that to me is almost enough to show the bible isn't inspired,
• 

  Comatose

  Yes Ding, but the example you site regarding the wall is with people and their spins on the event. There is no Holy Spirit to make sure the inspired truth is recorded. That makes the bible examples we are speaking about completely different. If god himself inspired the bible and it is his word, then a reasonable person would expect the most important parts to be recorded under inspiration and to match.

  But, god didn't cause the accounts to match. Some accounts do, some don't. And the spirit and feeling doesn't match either. In one Jesus is at peace and calm, in the other he is distraught and forsaken. Then for the baptism, one of THE ONLY times god speaks, it is not clear exactly what he said or to whom. Those are important details.
• 

  adamah

  To give a modern example of similar insignificant differences in reporting, one reporter might say, "President Reagan today demanded that Mikhail Gorbachev demolish the Berlin Wall." A second might say, "President Reagan exhorted Secretary General Gorbachev to remove the wall." A third might say, "The crowd roared when Reagan exclaimed that Gorbachev should tear down the Berlin wall." A fourth might say, "Standing at the Brandenburg gate, Ronald Reagan exclaimed, 'Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!'"

  There are a number of differences in those four accounts. Are any of the reports inconsistent regarding what really happened? Reading them, would you say, "The reporters' accounts are hopelessly contradictory. They can't agree on exactly who said what or whether he was really addressing the crowd or Gorbachev. The whole thing shakes my faith in the accuracy of reporters. If I can't trust them in this, I'm no longer going to believe a thing they say"?

  Uh, no, because they're NOT contradictory: all of those are expressing the same general concept, rephrased in a different manner.

  Your example fails, since the Gospel accounts offer completely different details tied to little things like what exactly were Jesus' last words (uttered RIGHT BEFORE his death)?

  Not that it really matters: if someone makes it past Genesis 11 without getting the idea that there are human-inspired flaws in the Bible, they're likely not TRYING to be a critical thinker. As Jeff said on the Atheist Experience today, if you're looking for contradictions and continuity errors in the Bible, it's a 'target-rich environment'.

  Adam
• 

  Ding

  Inspiration of the scriptures does not mean that the human authors were used as stenographers, so that each would be require to give their accounts in identical words. Wouldn't absolutely identical quotes with completely identical details (i.e. no individual differences regarding what to include or what points to emphasize) open the Bible to just claims of collusion, plagiarism, and redundancy?

  Regarding ICeltic's points about God orchestrating the torture and murder of his son in order to forgive a debt to himself, a couple of comments. First, if the doctrine of the Trinity is correct, then God did not simply sit in heaven watching someone else suffer; God came in the person of Christ and went through all that suffering himself. (My purpose here is not to turn this thread into a general debate about the Trinity. Rather, I am trying to show the implications of a very different perspective on what happened if the doctrine of the full deity of Christ is true).

  Also, talking about it being "a debt to himself" seems to imply that the debt of human sin is insignificant, as easy to forgive as someone owing me $5. Wouldn't the conclusion be the opposite... that if God deems the price that must be paid to atone for sin to be so high, that He must see the moral guilt of sin to be far more signficant than we do?
• 

  mP

  Ding:

  Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 prophesy many of these events.

  MP:

  Too bad Isa didnt mention jesus or that god had a son ? Why didnt he just say that ?

  BTW Isa 53 actually speaks of a lion attacking a mans feet, dishonest translators fix the words to make them seem prophetic. A bit like the Isa prophecy about a virgin giving birth to a messiah
• 

  mP

  Ding:

  Why is jesus never mentioned by name or title in the OT ? Why the big secret ?
• 

  adamah

  Ding said-

  Inspiration of the scriptures does not mean that the human authors were used as stenographers, so that each would be require to give their accounts in identical words. Wouldn't absolutely identical quotes with completely identical details (i.e. no individual differences regarding what to include or what points to emphasize) open the Bible to just claims of collusion, plagiarism, and redundancy?

  No. It's pretty clear there IS redundancy in the NT (Mark being the first of the Gospels written, based off another unknown writing), as well as plagarism, etc.. It doesn't bother me one bit that there's SOME redundancy, although you'd think the deity who wants to take credit for designing double-stranded DNA to transmit genetic information could do a BIT BETTER job at encoding His messages to mankind, besides having it written in a language devoid of vowels, punctuation marks, etc. So God could design codons, transposons, reverse DNA/mRNA, etc, but he couldn't inspire writers to invent punctuation marks?

  BTW, have you actually LOOKED at the raw Hebrew words which are used by translators as the frame used to fill in the gaps? It's a bit shocking, since most Bible readers assume that translation is like interpreting from English to German, when translating ancient Hebrew is more like translating Egyptian hieroglyphics. It's highly subjective, and a process fraught with error (to put it nicely).

  My problem though, is really one of STYLE.

  The Bible SHOULD be the slickest story ever written, at least 2x as fascinating (and with less continuity errors) than Tolkien's trilogy (and light-years ahead of CS Lewis' 'Chronicles of Narnia'). Problem is, as literature, the Bible is just not that good. It's just not.

  Even setting aside the scientific squabbles with the parallel design of the Genesis creation account (Ch 1-2), I can't make it past the Garden of Eden before encountering a MAJOR continuity error that completely blows the Christian claim of Adam and Eve being "perfect", and hence the idea of Adam's 'original sin' (if Adam and Eve were not "perfect", then there's no need for salvation by Jesus).

  Adam
• 

  mP

  Adamah

  Your words are wise, the bible should be perfect and should reveals gods will in perfect form instead of riddles requiring twisting and interpretation.
• 

  Comatose

  You know I can understand details of events in regular life being related slightly different. Like miracles that happened being relayed a little differently. Or whether Jesus rode a colt or a donkey into Jerusalem (or both at the same time). But, something as important as what god said in one of the few times he spoke ever. Or what the most important man who ever lived said at his death and how he felt about it all. Those things would just have to be recorded correctly if gods Holy Spirit inspired the bible.

  JWs feel that when you read a bible verse it is like god talking to you. Or that the verse is exactly what gods thoughts on the matter are. Or that god ensured that the exact correct details were given to us. So what happens when the details of the most important parts don't match?