Jump to content


Photo

Is The Bible God's Word?


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 588 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 13 February 2016 - 05:29 AM

What is the evidence that the bible is god's word?
How do you know that?
If god wrote/dictate the bible, how do you know the text we have know is still unchanged?

#2 Magnanimae

Magnanimae

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas
  • Interests:Video games, apologetics, school, music, philosophy and science, Jesus.
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Las Vegas

Posted 13 February 2016 - 02:21 PM

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a good case. The Old Testament used today is based on the Masoretic Text. The Dead Sea Scrolls give us Old Testament writings dating 1'000 years before the Masoretic Text. After translating the scrolls we find a solid similarity to the Masoretic Text. The Old Testament did what no other historical book ever could (survived the human translation process).
  • Calypsis4 and Bmaxdlux like this

#3 Magnanimae

Magnanimae

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas
  • Interests:Video games, apologetics, school, music, philosophy and science, Jesus.
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Las Vegas

Posted 13 February 2016 - 02:38 PM

My source: https://www.probe.or...ad-sea-scrolls/

#4 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 588 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 16 February 2016 - 02:40 AM

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a good case. The Old Testament used today is based on the Masoretic Text. The Dead Sea Scrolls give us Old Testament writings dating 1'000 years before the Masoretic Text. After translating the scrolls we find a solid similarity to the Masoretic Text. The Old Testament did what no other historical book ever could (survived the human translation process).

1) Other texts survived human translation process too. Homer's Illyad is just the first example that comes to mind. Is the Illyad god's word too?

2) What about the NT. If you use the Dead Sea scrolls as evidence that the OT is god's word, that leave the NT out of the equation.

3)Did the bible survive the human translation process? Why then are some books not in the bible used by Catholics (Deuteronomy), why are there such a disputes about which bible translation is the right one (KJV onlyism)?

Really "surviving the human translation process!



#5 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 588 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 18 February 2016 - 03:16 PM

Nobody elese?

#6 Magnanimae

Magnanimae

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas
  • Interests:Video games, apologetics, school, music, philosophy and science, Jesus.
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Las Vegas

Posted 25 February 2016 - 06:06 PM

Sorry. Life got to me. 1) What evidence is there for the Iliad's inerrancy? Are there Mediterranean Sea Scrolls proving any of Homer 's works as perfect translations to this day? I'm just asking for evidence. And no, the Iliad is not God's word. 2) The New Testament is not out of the equation. The manuscripts we have for the New Testament are in the thousands. Homer 's Iliad reached 647 (one of the best we have). Some manuscripts date back to mere centuries after the originals like the Chester Beatty Papyri which is dated mid-3rd century. The manuscript evidence for the New Testament is the best of any ancient document and if it is not good enough for you then throw the "Iliad", "Caesar's Gallic Wars", "Tacitus' Annals of Imperial Rome", etc. out the window. 3) The Dead Sea Scrolls are solid evidence the Old Testament survived human translation. The massive manuscript database we have for the New Testament is solid evidence for New Testament validity. There is 99.5% accuracy given to NT translations. The other .5% is about simple word discrepancies and about non-major doctrines. As for why some books are not included in the Bible, I assume you mean the Apocrypha, the Early Church Fathers did not recognize the Apocryphal books as canonical. The Catholic Church incorporated the Apocrypha into Scripture in response to the Protestant Reformation. Last but not least, I do not know of any serious discrepancies with current translations other than with cult versions. As said before, there is a 99.5% accuracy given to the New Testament. Any debates like KJVonlyism are news to me. My source for response 2 and 3.http://www.str.org/a...le#.Vs-bc-qIZcs
  • Bmaxdlux likes this

#7 Magnanimae

Magnanimae

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Las Vegas
  • Interests:Video games, apologetics, school, music, philosophy and science, Jesus.
  • Age: 18
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Las Vegas

Posted 03 March 2016 - 07:51 PM

I'm sorry for the jumbled response. I don't know how to quote and I use a tablet. Anyway, is there no response to my argument? Nothing?

#8 Dave

Dave

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 692 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 66
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 04 March 2016 - 10:26 AM

I'm sorry for the jumbled response. I don't know how to quote and I use a tablet. Anyway, is there no response to my argument? Nothing?

Hello Magnanimae, welcome to the forum.

 

You're absolutely right about the extant historicity of the Bible. There is much more that can be added to expand one's knowledge in this regard. One of my favorite Bible teachers, Chuck Missler, has a fascinating video on just this subject that would remove all doubt that the Bible is indeed God's word in anyone whose mind is capable of objective thinking.

 

You can view this video at:

 

Proof the Bible is True

 

 

Unfortunately, the information in this video is completely useless to people who are proudly and willingly hard-hearted, ignorant and closed minded (avowed atheists). These people will ask questions like, "Is the Bible really God's word?" not to learn, but to rebut with classic cut-and-paste anti-Bible rhetoric.

 

I offer this video, however, in the hopes that it might arm Christians who have a heart for apologetics with the information that they need to defend their faith.



#9 Daisy22

Daisy22

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Interests:Writing & Reading
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • London

Posted 17 February 2017 - 10:34 PM

Yes agreed! we can't ignore holy bible .The Bible is a collection of sacred texts or scriptures that Jews and Christians consider to be a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans. 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dissertation Proposal



#10 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,611 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 18 February 2017 - 04:22 AM

Daisy, I've never heard of a Christian-atheist before. Care to explain that one for me? :think:

 

(welcome to the forum.)

 

(then again, there are the theistic evolutionists of course.

:rotfl3: 



#11 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,611 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 18 February 2017 - 05:16 AM

 

 

Daisy22: Yes agreed! we can't ignore holy bible .The Bible is a collection of sacred texts or scriptures that Jews and Christians consider to be a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans. 

 

Permit me some pseudo-deductions, that are really fancy guesswork (Sherlockery)

 

From the limited data you have provided me, I have rendered this;

 

1. P + P. Not a good sign the two p's. What are they? Pluralism and patronising. Though I say, "patronising" with respect, in that I believe it is an unintentional patronising you have INHERITED from your studies, and I would guess those studies are at a university, from a hint of what you said.

 

Pluralism because of the language, "we can't ignore". What a terribly "educated" terminology to use, and peculiar. Such teaching can only come from the evolutionistic pluralism that now exists in the west, the wishy washy generic generalisation neurosis;

 

"it is important to learn about human history and the different religions, it tells us about psychology and so forth, and they are all equal in that essentially they come from tradition, etc..", and all that sort of pluralistic phlegm that the evolutionists indulge in their love of generalisation fallacies.

 

So then this tells me you are an atheist that studies religion, perhaps even Christianity. "Sacred" and, "divine" further confirm this for me, for only educated people that are atheists, can use respectful words about religion. When people study religion, you often see that the terminology they uses such as on those documentaries on tv, are always strangely respectful. The person studious in religion will kind of, "take on" the roll of the religion and talk as though they themselves are a part of that religion so as to respect the religious persons point of view. But that respect will be there for any religion, if they go to a Christian church they will speak as though Christianity is true, by using the same terminology BUT because of their pluralism, they will also use the same respectful terminology if they went to a mosque. 

 

Conclusions of my guesswork; You are an atheist that has studied religion, perhaps to some degree, perhaps even specifically Christianity given you felt the need to put, "Christian" on your profile because you desired to associate yourself with Christianity in some way because of the fanaticism of religion that you have because of your studies of it.

 

The patronising pluralism, basically means that people that have studied and are educated in religion but are essentially atheist, teach us from a pedestal-of-pluralism. I.e. "you are the subject, you are a Christian person, which means you are one that has taken on some traditional views and hold texts as holy,"

 

This is patronising to me because I actually have the Holy Spirit, I have the love of God and that is an experiential reality, not some psychologically primitive state-of-mind I am taking on, that could be regarded as GENERIC, and common to all religious experiences. (generalisation fallacies, which the profs didn't teach you no doubt.)

 

Disclaimer; please understand this is all guesswork, forgive me if I am way off base. Nor do I intend insult, it's just that when people come to teach me, the poor, self-educated, ignorant pupil, and they speak as the teacher of the poor victim of the psychological religionism I have inherited from a fear of death :rolleyes: , it is something that is very easy to perceive in people because of my long experience of the predictable nature of people with average intelligence that have been taught a few things so now position themselves neurotically as the superior teacher

 

So sorry if that's not you, as I say it isn't genuine deduction, technically speaking, because the guesswork characterised by Sherlock Holmes was a lot of the time actually a mixture of induction, deduction and guessing.



#12 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 588 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 18 February 2017 - 11:50 AM

Yes agreed! we can't ignore holy bible .The Bible is a collection of sacred texts or scriptures that Jews and Christians consider to be a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans. 

 

 

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dissertation Proposal

That's what christians claim. repeating that claim doesn't add any credibility to it.

So how do you know that?

Have you any evidence for that?



#13 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 588 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 18 February 2017 - 11:51 AM

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a good case. The Old Testament used today is based on the Masoretic Text. The Dead Sea Scrolls give us Old Testament writings dating 1'000 years before the Masoretic Text. After translating the scrolls we find a solid similarity to the Masoretic Text. The Old Testament did what no other historical book ever could (survived the human translation process).

Similarity, but no exact match. So what is the right version?

And how do you decide this.

And -- more important, what does this say about a divine inspiration?



#14 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,611 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 18 February 2017 - 12:19 PM

 

Driewerf: That's what christians claim. repeating that claim doesn't add any credibility to it.

So how do you know that?

Have you any evidence for that?

 

 

No, it is not a matter of what Christians claim, for Christians now, come a lot, lot later than the bible. It is what God has claimed in the scriptures. The bible itself is a unique book, the manuscript authority of the New Testament for example, alone, is good evidence.

 

As for extra-biblical evidence, all we can do is look to archaeology to see if it confirms the claims of the bible. We have personal proof in our lives, that God is real to us, through His revelation which is not intellectual.

 

As for archaeology, it is well known now that Hezekiah's tunnels for example, have been found under Jerusalem. That is the tip of the iceburg. If you want to learn more and actually are interested in the evidence, you should watch this video;

 

Here is an overview of some of the things they have found;

 

Joshua's altar on Mt Ebal. (a very strong case for it)

Fallen walls of Jericho

Balaam inscription

Fortified gates of Solomon

Jeroboam's altar at Dan.

 

I won't say any more as I don't want to be guilty of elephant hurling, but I advise you watch the video because the man giving the talk in this video, is involved directly in some of the archaeological excavations, which match up with the bible in some amazing and unequivocal ways.

 

The best evidence is there has been found 26 names from the bible. (bullac, inscriptions)

 

As for the bible being God's word, if it isn't then nothing is, because quite clearly the bible deals with the issues of life and answers for man's sinful nature, it explains man's position, why we are the way we are, and gives us the answers as to why the world is the way it is. It tells us why suffering and evil are here, etc..and gives a message far more meaningful than any other worldview can give. What other worldview answers the big questions of life? For example, the belief that cows are holy, worshipping cows, or the belief pondscum arranges itself to later become giraffes, are these deep and meaningful realities that explain the human condition? I don't think so somehow. So instead of trying to discredit the bible, at least give an alternative which is better. (which you can't do)

 



#15 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 588 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 19 February 2017 - 12:55 AM

No, it is not a matter of what Christians claim, for Christians now, come a lot, lot later than the bible. It is what God has claimed in the scriptures.

 Stop there. Because that is exactly what I ask you to demonstrate. That these are god's words. Using the claim that the bible is god's word for proving the bible is god's word is circular reasoning. And always a sign of bad logic.
 

The bible itself is a unique book,

All books are unique. The bible is unique. Moby Dick is unique, A Modest Proposal is unique. Uniqueness is no evidence of divine inspiration.
 

the manuscript authority of the New Testament for example, alone, is good evidence.As for extra-biblical evidence, all we can do is look to archaeology to see if it confirms the claims of the bible. We have personal proof in our lives, that God is real to us, through His revelation which is not intellectual.
 
As for archaeology, it is well known now that Hezekiah's tunnels for example, have been found under Jerusalem. That is the tip of the iceburg. If you want to learn more and actually are interested in the evidence, you should watch this video;
 
Here is an overview of some of the things they have found;
 
Joshua's altar on Mt Ebal. (a very strong case for it)
Fallen walls of Jericho
Balaam inscription
Fortified gates of Solomon
Jeroboam's altar at Dan.
 
I won't say any more as I don't want to be guilty of elephant hurling, but I advise you watch the video because the man giving the talk in this video, is involved directly in some of the archaeological excavations, which match up with the bible in some amazing and unequivocal ways.
 
The best evidence is there has been found 26 names from the bible. (bullac, inscriptions)
 
As for the bible being God's word, if it isn't then nothing is, because quite clearly the bible deals with the issues of life and answers for man's sinful nature, it explains man's position, why we are the way we are, and gives us the answers as to why the world is the way it is. It tells us why suffering and evil are here, etc..and gives a message far more meaningful than any other worldview can give. What other worldview answers the big questions of life? For example, the belief that cows are holy, worshipping cows, or the belief pondscum arranges itself to later become giraffes, are these deep and meaningful realities that explain the human condition? I don't think so somehow. So instead of trying to discredit the bible, at least give an alternative which is better. (which you can't do)
 

Arceological evidence from the Middle East evidence for divine inspiration? Really? I would be impressed if the bible mentioned the Great Chinese Wall, or Stonehenge or Rome for that matter. But simply the archeology from the direct surroundings of the authors. Not very impressive.



#16 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,611 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Refuting baloney, crushing codswallop, outwitting Khan.
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 19 February 2017 - 04:18 AM

 

 

Driewerf: Stop there. Because that is exactly what I ask you to demonstrate. That these are god's words. Using the claim that the bible is god's word for proving the bible is god's word is circular reasoning. And always a sign of bad logic.

 

 

Nice try but I didn't really argue that, but even if I had it wouldn't be circular reasoning like you seem to think. I only argued that God's words/claims within the bible, are the claims God has used in His word. I was responding to you saying that Christians argue the bible is God's word when really it is because of what the bible says, that it follows that all of those scriptures simply existing, imply it is holy scripture. Some of the statements in the bible are so outspoken that the bible is basically a claim in itself, of divine authorship.

 

Think of some of the things God says in Isaiah for example and some things the bible claims itself without Christians uttering a word;

 

"for I am God, and there is no other, declaring the end from the beginning."

"For since the beginning of the world,  ear has not heard, nor has any eye seen any God except you."

"Besides me there is no God, I know not one." 

 

Sot obtuse anti-theists think is circular reasoning, (not that I argue it anyway, as you argued a strawman in the hope of indicting me with it) for they have conflated circular reasoning with the law of identity, which is tautologous. That is to say, if the bible is God's word self-evidently then it cannot be what it is not, nor can it not be used as an example of what it is, according to the law of identity.

 

Thus you are saying that a human being cannot be evidence the person is human.

 

Are you saying it is circular to use myself as evidence I am human? Absurd, for the very DNA and anatomy of my body is human and is therefore direct evidence of my humanity.

 

So atheists try to use this "reasoning" for want of a better word, as an impossible standard

 

They do this so as to juxtapose what they believe is a lack of extra-biblical evidence, with what they have told themselves is circular reasoning. 

 

 

 

Driewerf: All books are unique. The bible is unique. Moby Dick is unique, A Modest Proposal is unique. Uniqueness is no evidence of divine inspiration.

 

That's equivocation though. That isn't what I mean by unique. For example Moby Dick is only a unique story but it isn't one of a kind as there are other stories of fiction.

 

The bible, in what it is, is one of a kind. There isn't any other religious book in history, which is a collection of books written over centuries which all have a viable overall message and theme from start to finish. No other religious books give the answers to the big questions. You didn't answer my question, if the bible is not the word of God, what other word is true, pertaining to man's condition? Are holy cows to be worshipped? Are primordial blobs turning into giraffes? Are these beliefs really realistic when we look at the human condition?

 

 

 

Driewerf: Arceological evidence from the Middle East evidence for divine inspiration? Really? I would be impressed if the bible mentioned the Great Chinese Wall, or Stonehenge or Rome for that matter. But simply the archeology from the direct surroundings of the authors. Not very impressive.

 

The point of providing archaeological evidence for locations and events in the bible is to provide veracity for the bible's claims. So for example, if the bible is false we wouldn't really expect Joshua's altar on Mt Ebal. They also found the bony remains of hundreds of animals, of the type the bible says were sacrificed. Whether you like it or not, logically this does count as evidence the bible is true. There are many other examples, but your flippant dismissal tells me you haven't so much as watched five minutes of the video. You have no intention of watching it, because you are simply an anti-theist that is only here to state that the bible is not God's word.

 

Where is the evidence for your claim that it isn't? I have provided archaeological evidence that it is, which is extra-biblical, and it is very specific evidence, which very specifically matches the stories within the bible, such as the 26 names of people the bible mentioned in the book of Jeremiah, meaning this is very good evidence those people really existed. The city of David has also now been found. A very good candidate for the exodus has been found.

 

Then there is all of the evidence for the great flood, the chief evidence being two pieces of DIRECT evidence, you would only expect from the flood. Because the flood happened when all life was on the earth, we would expect the fossils to show that all types of life were destroyed. So we wouldn't just expect mammals, we would expect to see plant life preserved, mammals of all types, reptiles of all types, invertebrates of all types. This is because the flood was claimed to have destroyed ALL life on earth, so we would expect as evidence, basically every phyla on the planet, to pretty much be contained in the fossils, and that is what we see. The second major piece of evidence is that we would expect that because it is a watery catastrophe, that each layer of rock would contain marine forms. And indeed, we even find marine evidence on top of Everest, and in desert rock. We find marine forms in all rock. Thirdly we find polystrate fossils, penetrating many layers of rock "ages". Fourthly we find planation, which is the most peculiar geomorphology in that it can only seem to be caused by a massive water force. There are also water gaps, and other evidence for a major flood. We would also expect that if Genesis is true and organisms reproduce according to kind, that the fossils would contain the same kinds of creatures or extinct creatures, but with no evolutionary ancestors, that appear abruptly, and are pretty much identical to their modern counter-parts. For how else could we expect differently? For if Noah mentions a "dove" on the ark, then that means we should only find doves today, identical to doves then. If we find a pine tree in the fossils, if pine trees reproduce according to kind like the bible says then they shouldn't change, and the fossils should show that they don't, which is a major evidence that the bible is correct, that organisms reproduce according to kind, because the stasis (non-change) in the fossils, is so widespread, that the fossils record is now regarded as a picture of stasis. This is overwhelming and direct evidence, logically, that the bible is correct.

 

CONCLUSION: It's not the evidence, there is sufficient evidence in modernity, that the bible is incredibly reliable. It is impossible to prove the claims in the bible of the miracles if we have no evidence today. There is always an element of faith by which we must also believe in it's claims. But people like you are not intellectually honest with themselves, for you have no interest in whether the bible is true, you just want to come to forums like this to assert that it isn't.

 

(for example; juxtapose my posts with yours. A very clear and stark difference is the amount of words to explain my arguments, compared with your one-line assertions, meaning you have no real interest in making a case against the bible, you just want to shout that it isn't God's word. One-liners consisting of a few words, compared with lengthy explanations, means that I am the only one giving a reasoned explanation of my position whereas your posts seem to be characterised by one-line accusations.)

 

Please...is this all atheists have to offer? I'm..."LAUGHING at the superior intellect." - Captain Kirk - The Wrath Of Khan.

 

:P


  • Tirian likes this

#17 driewerf

driewerf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 588 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Belgium

Posted 27 February 2017 - 03:56 AM

Nice try but I didn't really argue that, but even if I had it wouldn't be circular reasoning like you seem to think. I only argued that God's words/claims within the bible, are the claims God has used in His word.



I was responding to you saying that Christians argue the bible is God's word when really it is because of what the bible says, that it follows that all of those scriptures simply existing, imply it is holy scripture. Some of the statements in the bible are so outspoken that the bible is basically a claim in itself, of divine authorship.

 Which is a very good example of circular reasoning. You use the point to be demonstrated in your argumentation;
 

 

Think of some of the things God says in Isaiah for example and some things the bible claims itself without Christians uttering a word;
 
"for I am God, and there is no other, declaring the end from the beginning."
"For since the beginning of the world,  ear has not heard, nor has any eye seen any God except you."
"Besides me there is no God, I know not one." 

Again, who says this is god's word, and not a human text. Any fool can write this.
 

 
 

Are you saying it is circular to use myself as evidence I am human? Absurd, for the very DNA and anatomy of my body is human and is therefore direct evidence of my humanity.

 

Exactly, because there you use external evidence (the DNA or anatomy of other humans) as evidence. But in your argumentation about the bible or god's word you haven't done this.
 
 

So atheists try to use this "reasoning" for want of a better word, as an impossible standard

 

Nope. Show me any evidence and I 'll give it a fair chance.
 
 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users