The Bible: the word of God?

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!
Post Reply
User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Post by klewlis » Sat Oct 23, 2004 5:39 pm

copain wrote:But please do not refer to the bible - as usefull this book is for the christian community or for
a single person itself - but the bible is in its complexity and through the many translation a veiling of God itself!
I think his reference to the Bible is quite appropriate in a thread devoted to discussing the Bible as the Word of God. ;)

It seems to me that having a variety of translations actually increases understanding of the Bible, rather than making it tougher to understand. It's always helpful to see how different people translate the same passages, in order to get a fuller understanding of what the greek/hebrew was trying to convey.

The Bible is indeed quite complex--so that scholars spend their whole lives digging through it. But it is also simple enough for a child to read and understand its basic messages.

edit:
And I never have felt - and I think many other people as well - the presence of a God like you can felt the presence of the sun for example !
CS Lewis said something along these lines (not a direct quote!): "I believe in God as I believe in the sun--not because I can see it, but because by it I see everything else."

Democritus
Textkit Fan
Posts: 331
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 12:14 am
Location: California

Post by Democritus » Sat Oct 23, 2004 6:29 pm

Emma_85 wrote:
I believe it is more daring to believe in evolution. There is no scientific evidence to prove any of it.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... 9EC588EEDF
Belief in the literal truth of the Bible does not bother me -- everyone has their own faith. What bugs me is that creation scientists take their religious faith and disguise it as a science, and pretend that their beliefs are based on evidence or proof.

Rhuiden was up front with us. He told us right from the top that he believes in the literal truth of the Bible. Fair enough.

But anyone who believes this has no need of proof or evidence. Fundamentalists have no reason to avoid acknowledging that the evidence does not match their religious beliefs, because indeed, it simply does not matter. If you start out with the presumption that the Bible is literally, factually true in every detail, then you have no need of proof or evidence from the real world.

"Creation scientists," as they style themselves, are pretending that their beliefs stem from science, when in fact they do not stem from any science.

As Emma's article mentions:
Scientific American wrote:[Myth #4] Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.

No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.

Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. ...

Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly ....
Asserting a belief in the literal truth of the Bible is honest, inasmuch as it represents one's true beliefs. But pretending that scientific doubts exists, where in fact no scientific doubt exists, is not honest. It's fair to claim that "scientists are wrong." But it is unfair and dishonest to claim that "scientists are changing their minds," when in fact they have not changed their minds at all.

IMHO that lack of honesty among creation scientists is more than a little disturbing. Why do these folks have to pretend? What part of Christian doctrine says that Christians should masquerade as scientists and misrepresent the facts?

There are huge volumes of physical evidence that supports the theory of evolution. There is little physical evidence supporting the creation story in Genesis.

copain
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 9:05 pm

Post by copain » Sat Oct 23, 2004 7:05 pm

klewlis wrote: I think his reference to the Bible is quite appropriate in a thread devoted to discussing the Bible as the Word of God. ;)
  • Sorry again, but we are discussing about this book and it´s direct link to God for over five pages with very different opinions so this cannot be a prove of the - clear - existence of God.
    Would we discuss about the existence of the sun, I dare to say we would not get a page together (of different arguments). :)
"I believe in God as I believe in the sun--not because I can see it, but because by it I see everything else."
  • Hey, that´s sounds nice!
    Every time I look up in the star spangled sky I get a notion of the creator, but sadly I can not see nor feel him. I only feel this deep respect about his creation!

User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Sat Oct 23, 2004 9:29 pm

klewlis wrote:Strange, my copy of the book does not have that longer title. But it is a cheap copy. And I haven't read the book so I guess I shouldn't talk about it. :)
My grandmother's copy has the longer title too, but it's an old copy, maybe they shortened it in the newer prints?
phpbb

chiggles
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:16 am
Location: Madison, WI

Post by chiggles » Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:17 pm

I went over to one of my bookshelves and pulled off from my 1954 Great Books of the Western World set, number 49 - Darwin.
There are two books in this volume:
The Origin of Species - By Means of Natural Selection
The Descent of Man - And Selection in Relation to Sex

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:32 am

Rhuiden, you are doing an admirable job defending your position.
Your position is very close to mine but you are doing a better job putting it into words. I try not to get into religious dabates on the internet anymore because I have unintentionally ruffled feathers (Not my feathers [Pun intended, my name means -the Rooster-). Maybe I have come across as a bigot.
I did not want you to be alone in this so the least I can do is to say: "I agree".

User avatar
Phylax
Textkit Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:01 pm
Location: Lewes, East Sussex, UK

Post by Phylax » Sun Oct 24, 2004 12:35 am

There are 66 total, 27 of which are in the New Testament.
Very many thanks for that, Klewlis, and for detailing the books for us. You mention that the Roman Catholics have a larger set that they think are 'canonical'. They presumably feel that the additional books are as "God-breathed" as the rest. I have had a quick look through around, and it seems that the various Christian divisions actually have different lists of books which they regard as the word of God.

So I have a problem which you may be able to help me with: why did God 'God-breath' different groups of Christians at different times with different solutions as to what constitutes His word?

Rhuiden has an even more difficult answer to find here, since it seems as if he (in contrast with you, who propose a modicum of human-conscience-based interpretation of what God wishes to communicate) actually proposes it was God who made the Bible writers write exactly what He wanted to communicate. Rhuiden has to explain why a perfect God left it over 1500 years before He told us which books constitute His word, and why quite a substantial number of Christians did not recognize His inspiration on this point at the time of the establishment of the Protestant Canon.

Well, Rhuiden doesn't have to explain, but I would be grateful if the good man could do so for my sake!

With thanks to you, Klewlis, and to Rhuiden, in your endeavour to inform me, and help me be more knowlegeable,

Phylax
phpbb

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:39 am

Phylax wrote:Very many thanks for that, Klewlis, and for detailing the books for us. You mention that the Roman Catholics have a larger set that they think are 'canonical'. They presumably feel that the additional books are as "God-breathed" as the rest. I have had a quick look through around, and it seems that the various Christian divisions actually have different lists of books which they regard as the word of God.

So I have a problem which you may be able to help me with: why did God 'God-breath' different groups of Christians at different times with different solutions as to what constitutes His word?

Rhuiden has an even more difficult answer to find here, since it seems as if he (in contrast with you, who propose a modicum of human-conscience-based interpretation of what God wishes to communicate) actually proposes it was God who made the Bible writers write exactly what He wanted to communicate. Rhuiden has to explain why a perfect God left it over 1500 years before He told us which books constitute His word, and why quite a substantial number of Christians did not recognize His inspiration on this point at the time of the establishment of the Protestant Canon.

Well, Rhuiden doesn't have to explain, but I would be grateful if the good man could do so for my sake!

With thanks to you, Klewlis, and to Rhuiden, in your endeavour to inform me, and help me be more knowlegeable,

Phylax
It is true that there was much debate in the early church about which books were "God-breathed". I believe that God guided the early church fathers, in the same way he does today, into a consensus about which books were to be included and which were not. Are you only referring the the extra books the Catholics use or are there other groups also? Unless you are also referring to the Mormans who use The Book of Morman, I am not sure who else disputes the books of the Bible. The Bible contians 66 books which were written over a vast period of time but there has been agreement on the books contained in the Bible since around 397A.D.

The Roman Catholic Church added tha Apocrypha in 1546 at the Council of Trent. My theology book (Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem) mentions they did this in response to the teachings of Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation. It says they did this because the Apocrypha contained support for the Catholic Church's teachings of prayers for the dead and justification by faith plus works, not faith alone.

Grudem also lists the reasons why Protestants believe the apocrypha shoul not be included in the Bible: 1) they do not claim for themselves the same kind of authority as the Old Testiment writings, 2) they were not regarded as God's words by the Jewish people from whom they originated, 3) there were not considered to be Scripture by Jesus or the NT authors, and 4)they contain teachings inconsistent with the rest of the Bible.

Rhuiden

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:42 am

klewlis wrote:It seems to me that having a variety of translations actually increases understanding of the Bible, rather than making it tougher to understand. It's always helpful to see how different people translate the same passages, in order to get a fuller understanding of what the greek/hebrew was trying to convey.

The Bible is indeed quite complex--so that scholars spend their whole lives digging through it. But it is also simple enough for a child to read and understand its basic messages.
I completely agree.

Rhuiden

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:51 am

Bert wrote:Rhuiden, you are doing an admirable job defending your position.
Your position is very close to mine but you are doing a better job putting it into words. I try not to get into religious dabates on the internet anymore because I have unintentionally ruffled feathers (Not my feathers [Pun intended, my name means -the Rooster-). Maybe I have come across as a bigot.
I did not want you to be alone in this so the least I can do is to say: "I agree".
Thanks for your support. I appreciate the kind words but I am not sure if I am doing an "admirable" job. I am not articulate enough and I too have ruffled feathers unintentionally. My words seem to come accross too harsh sometimes.

Klewlis (my only ally until now) deserves much credit also for her willingness to speak out and defend her faith.

Please feel free to post anytime, you may be able to make a point I am not able to.

Rhuiden

Post Reply