I think you might be missing the understanding that these people heard and obeyed the same Spirit, the same God... though today He speaks through His Son.
How do you KNOW that it's the "same spirit"? You don't KNOW that. NO ONE does, or ever COULD know, since it's UNKNOWABLE.
Have you not noticed how the depiction of the spirit of God changes significantly from Genesis to Revelation? Have you not noticed how God starts out quite anthromorphic in Genesis, being limited in terms of His traits (eg non-omniscient, not all-powerful, but easily frustrated and hence with anger-management issues)? By the time you get to later OT scribes, and by the God depicted by Jesus, Jehovah got omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
Did you just ignore the evolution in his behavior, or do you rationalize it away with defense mechanisms and post-hoc rationalizations ("lying scribes", or anything that seems fishy gets the boot and ignored)? That's a moral determination, using your "flawed" internal moral compass.
I suppose the same unchanging single personality underlying all the contrasting God depictions might possibly exist, but there's HUGE continuity errors introduced in Genesis very early on, and it just gets worse from there. By the time a person learns something about ancient literary traditions in other cultures, and examines the archaeologicial evidence (that completely FAILS to verify the Biblicial account, and worse, points to the Biblical claims as being an impossibility), then the picture just gets even worse. Combined with MRI studies of voice-hearers and those who experience psychoses which leads some to believe in God, and the "God Hypothesis" is ham-strung.
Not that the Torah ISN'T a fascinating historical record of an ancient civilization, just that there's no reason to think that it would contain LITERAL OR METAPHORICAL "truths" which are more worthy of study vs the 1000's of other artifacts from ancient cultures, literary works written BEFORE the concept of recording history ever arose as a separate discipline: the concept of recording history is a fairly-late concept, the idea of leaving an accurate and honest depiction of events for future generations. People just didn't think like that, and it wasn't their goal for writing (and hence why the "geneologies in the Bible are such a mess: they're offered to support a theological claim, NOT as a literal record of relations amongst people). The idea of leaving an accurate record of historical events for future generations is an anachronistic insertion of a concept from recent times which cannot help but color the readings of most moderns, who likely aren't familiar with studying ancient literature to understand ancient thinking (esp if it's their "Holy" Bible which they cannot HELP but read devotionally, not criticially).
Even setting aside ALL of the overwhelming of evidence from science (biology, physics, etc) for a minute, a vastly-simplier explanation than God existing is that deities are characters, written by a string of authors over multiple generations who've likely never even met in person, and at times weren't even AWARE of the other's work (and hence added contradictions); at other times they WERE aware of the works of prior authors, but they derived their inspiration for the actions of the Jehovah character largely dependent upon the current priestly classes CONCEPTIONS and ongoing discussions of what behavior they imagined God would/should display. We have rabbinical Talmudic discussions where you can see ongoing evolving discussions of interpretations, which ALSO change over time. It's hard to imagine that the same basic process DIDN'T happen amongst the elite who were honored to write the Torah.
The motivation for writing? The thinking is that the Persian Empire had recently liberated the Jewish slaves in Babylon (the first benefactors of Zoroasterian's anti-slavery laws WERE the Jews held captivity in Babylon, who ironicially took the first chance they got to start up the slave trade again in Israel AFTER the Persians were defeated by Greeks). The Persians offered to let the Jews return to their destroyed homeland and rebuild their Temple (and pay a Temple tax to the Persians) IF they committed to finalizing a SINGLE code of laws expressed in writing, and Ezra was appointed the job since he "remembered the Torah by heart" and was able to reconstruct it (Ezra 7:12–26 even records the authorization). Thus the stimulus was dangled in front of the Jewish leaders to submit an official code of laws to gain their autonomy, although it was a work open to subsequent modification (as most books of legal codes are) since scribes often felt compelled to "correct" errors and resolve contradictions (often introducing more errors than they fix).
(As Leolaia has written, the Book of Job shows MAJOR evidence of tampering over time, with later redactors adding a narrative "frame" and passages into the poetic "core" to create the opening scene in Heaven where Satan is part of God's team, serving on the Divine Counsel (which somewhat undermines the logic of the core poetry, since the message is SUPPOSED to be that God works in mysterious ways, but the prologue scene REVEALS that the 'mystery' is just a bar bet where Satan bet God that Job would break under pressure, and God wanted to prove Satan wrong, so he ALLOWED Satan to cause bad things to happen to Job, just so God could add insult to injury by later telling him that Job couldn't understand it even if he told him why. Nice, eh? The later author FUBARed the whole "working in mysterious ways" theodicial excuse by BLOWING the MYSTERY of why Job was suffering, when it would've been more effective if LEFT unexplained.)
The development of the Greek Septuagint was a HUGE FUBAR translation that introduced many errors vs the Hebrew Tanakh percursors; the Septuagint was likely the stimulus for Jesus "woe to you lying scribes" comments. Even the Qumran Dead Sea Scrolls show massive evidence of 'redacting', a nice way of saying the scribe felt compelled to altering the parts the Torah didn't like, or to "clarify", since it disagreed with THEIR current theology'. Also ALL languages change with time, and the meanings of words change). These are part of the reasons WHY you see evidence of syncretism in the Torah, where later-period writings suspiciously became alot like Zoroasterian beliefs (eg introduction of Satan), and where Far Eastern Buddhist Vedic religious traditions and concepts crept into Judaism via the Persian Empire, so Jesus started to adopt a Far-Eastern asceticism (vow of poverty, forgoing of worldly goods, etc). Coincidence? Hardly: syncretism is going on ALL AROUND YOU and you're unaware of it. It's part of life. Judaism OUTLAWED such changes, trying to hold onto a past that never even existed (except in their imaginations).
Though I do understand that you and others are not going to believe that. And I do understand that someone who does not have faith (athiest) must have another explanation other than that Christ exists, is alive, and does speak. I get that from a non-believer. But not so much from someone who claims to have faith, to believe the accounts (whether in whole or part) as written.
Well, that's kind of the point I was making: believers believe based ON faith, alone, and looking for evidence is actually a sign that they don't "get it". Hence, they should believe in God DESPITE ALL evidence, which is kind of the acid test for a recalcitrant Christian who is not worth talking with; I'll ask them what possible evidence could be presented to convince them that the Bible is only the work of ancient clever men who made up a deity? If they say NONE, they aren't worth discussing, because they HAVE committed to ignoring ANY and ALL POSSIBLE EVIDENCE, so they're actually IMMUNE from reasoning and rationality. Their mind is snapped tightly-shut, so there's no point in talking.
As a rationalist, I'd HAVE NO CHOICE BUT to become a believer YESTERDAY IF presented sufficent evidence to conclude that 1) God exists 2) The God is the same one who inspired the Bible, and wants us to become Christians and believe in Jesus. The term "theistic rationalist" is NOT contradictory, and is POSSIBLE, but the only thing lacking is..... evidence.
HOWEVER, I'm HIGHLY DOUBTFUL that it would happen, since Christianity has developed the OPPOSITE of rational skepticism, refusing to examine claims on the basis of evidence. Instead, the Bible values "the faith of a child", which to ME is a code word for "looking for suckers who just fell off the turnip truck". The clarion call of "you can trust me, HONEST!" is the theme song of scammers and con-artists since the dawn of mankind (actually, isn't that the ENTIRE basis of the deception used by the serpent in order to trick Eve? "Just trust me?" So Jesus is asking humanity to "just trust me!" and we're supposed to NOT ask for proof? Once bitten, twice shy?).
Except that few religions teach that the Spirit of Christ is alive and does speak... not truly. That is why they say, come to me (men, religion) over... go to Him.
Yeah, the problem is you admit the Bible is tampered with, so how do you trust which advice is true?
The voice in that video is VERY intrusive. I am not speaking about that. Christ is quiet. One HAS to listen.
Listen for WHAT? How do you KNOW? Internal validation again, AKA faith.
Wait... those are ALL voices she hears? I thought it was just the whispering one. I also thought someone was with her in the kitchen. So yeah, I am not speaking about anything like that. Not at all. That is not my experience.
Of course that's not YOUR experience: from the first page of ANY perceptual science textbook, EVERYONE'S experiences are going to be VARIABLE, hence perceived differently by each individual. You cannot be sure that I perceive ANYTHING the same way you do, and vice-versa, but it doesn't really matter, since no matter WHAT it is that each of us experiences as the perception (say, of a chair), we can all agree to call the source that leads to the variable perception something (a name), so we're referring to the same object.
The perceptual problem is compounded when the stimulus is being internally-generated from within the brain itself: all bets are off as to their commonality, but all of our perceptions MAY share certain TRAITS which allows us to categorize and describe them.
Personal experiences can indeed be flawed. But if what one hears also happens to be true, then there is a bit more validation to that, even if only for that person.
That only begs the question: how do you know it IS true? Again, you're susceptible to internal validation and confirmation bias, since you aren't an unbiased independent observer who's able to determine IF the claim is true (scientists don't serve as their own test subjects, exactly for that reason). I'm not saying it's impossible to formulate a testable verifiable way to challenge the validity of your voice, it's just that most believers actually ARE unwilling to do so, since it potentially robs them of something that protects them (as a defense mechanism). Usually they'll claim that the presence of a skeptic and doubters alters their voices capabilities (by interfering with faith), and they blame any failures on that....
Other people do not have to take their word for it, but they could experience the same... and if they did, would it matter that no one else believed them? Faith is not something that man can give another man.
Again, that's the VERY DEFINITION of internal validation, which is another way of saying "blind faith". As you point out, faith is NOT transferrable, so you could be 100% SURE of something, yet STILL be wrong. It happens ALL the TIME, where people die believing they're right (eg "I didn't THINK the gun was loaded, so I cleaned it"), but it doesn't make it so.
I do hear within. In the spirit. As do others I know who are listening, in spirit. I do not have any sort of psychological disorder. I do have to LISTEN, to hear... and there are many things that might cause me NOT to hear (listening to other voices - what other men, religion, etc, have to say, because their baggage and teachings can be very loud.
The problem is you're living amidst a group of those who similarly felt "moved by the Holy Spirit" in the past, and GENUINELY BELIEVED in their heart of hearts that they felt the love of Jesus, etc. We KNOW it wasn't really real, since many of us have gotten similar feelings and emotions via OTHER methods (eg sex, inspired by music composition/performance, reading/writing moving poetry, looking at the beauty in nature, watching a compelling story in a movie, etc, etc). Human emotions are pliable, and people SHOULD be inspired by SOMETHING, but they shouldn't misattribute such feelings to deities or beings since that's a waste of time.
Nothing is forced upon me. Now recognizing Him (now understanding that HE does speak), I realize that I heard Him long before I recognized Him... as many people do.
He can speak in clear words, dreams, understanding and revelation simply received (like inspiration -> inspired - > in spirit); in images; in reminders of scripture or something written from any source brought to mind; and also in recognition of hearing truth in something someone else shares in spirit.
What you're describing now sounds like an internal dialog, and not so much a "voice"; however, you STILL IMO need a better method of verifying "truths" aside from trusting an internal dialogue.
The Bible is thus in essence an ancient dairy of voice hearers, and it appeals with a strong resonance with those who also experience voices.
That is an interesting statement, and a bit misleading, though I am not saying intentionally so. Most who believe in the bible would be faster to denounce someone who claimed to hear the voice of Christ, than even an atheist would. Most believe that sort of thing happened to certain special people... and does not happen today, and certainly NOT to some nobody. What makes YOU so special, is the response... or perhaps 'you're listening to a demon or bad spirit'; so that hearing a voice, even the Holy Spirit/Spirit of Christ... is not seen as something good, but something to be avoided at all costs.
I have no doubt people DO experience internal voices that they attribute to external sources; that's been verified, and seems quite analogous to physical conditions like body-integrity identity disorder, where a person loses a sense of identity of what clearly a part of their body (eg arm) as "theirs"; the same disorder likely explains sex-identity disorders, where a person truly doesn't feel "right" living in their own skin. It seems likely the same phenomena can happen with internal dialogue,or even with dissociative identity disorders (multiple personalities), where a person can break into multiples. However, rather than developing discrete identities with unique personalities, the voices can be ascribed to different sources, depending on what they WANT to believe it to be, their cultural context, etc.
As you point out, the Bible heavily influences the public's reaction to anyone who claims to hear voices, since the writers of the Bible were no strangers to what was likely a common condition in the past, and issues a warning to those who'd publicly admit their perception as potentially "false prophets", subject to stoning! Obviously, those who claim to hear voice of God are threatening to their scheme, and bad for business and (rightly) viewed as potential competitors.
But again, I don't doubt anyone hears a voice in their head, just that they claim they KNOW the source if they claim it's outside of their own subconscious mind.
I, personally, did not even notice all the examples of those who HEARD... you know how you can read something and not pay attention to what is actually being said? I mean, its in there... but it only applied to those people, and certainly would not apply to people today, right? That was my thinking... until someone pointed out our Lord's own words on the matter, and that Christ IS alive, and does speak.
It's hard to imagine that a voice hearer WOULDN'T be subconsciously influenced by reading the account of other voice hearers, since someone who DOESN'T hear voices would reasonably stop and think, "wait a minute: that's not normal" (just as most readers do when encountering the story of a talking serpent, whereas someone who hallucinated such images wouldn't think twice about it, OR it would register with them as special: "you SEE! It happened to someone else, TOO!"). Point being, it's impossible for you to KNOW what it's like to NOT hear a voice, just like its impossible to know what it IS like; the only means to bridge the experiential gap is via use of logic and reasoning.
I don't think there are as many people claiming to hear their God as you have stated. They might claim that they were spoken to in some way (a sign, or a feeling, or something, or through their church, or through an experience), but not too many claim to hear direct. The thing I think that scares most people are all the claims that some make that God told them to kill their children, or their spouse, or their parents, etc. I have no reason to doubt that those people heard a voice (or voices) telling them to do that (other than perhaps a few frauds trying to get out of trouble), but a claim does not make it so. That is why we must TEST the spirits. Test the message. Test against Christ and against love, and even if your only source is love and what Christ is WRITTEN to have said, then do that test.
Again, you don't trust the Bible, so you're actually relying on your own "horribly flawed" (per the Bible) moral compass in order to determine a proper course of action; in fact, in order to know IF God's law even applies to your situation REQUIRES making a moral determination.
So you're actually in no different of a position from all the other humans living on the Planet. You're just adding another level of complexity that's unneeded accessory vestigial organ of morality, since it carries quite a burden over simply building your OWN moral compass directly (by taking a course in ethics/philosophy, building your OWN brain power).
Though it is interesting that some of the preconcieved biases and prejudices against those who hear voice(s) are being shattered. Good. Regardless of the source of that voice or not.
Hey, I'm ALL for the advancement of humanity via the sharing and gaining of knowledge, and that includes explaining the voice-hearing phenomena to both the sufferers AND those who are carrying ignorant Bible-based bigotry AGAINST them, just the same. I like to believe that increasing awareness and knowledge will improve the conditions for ALL humans TODAY, in the here and now; why wait for tomorrow to act on what IS known today?
Adam