The Bible is not the word of God

[DrProctopus]

A bunch of people who believed that God was talking to them wrote down what they believed God was saying.

The more relevant or successful scriptures were kept and eventually composed into the OT.

Something similar happend after Jesus did his thing, and the NT was produced.


Nowhere in this process do I see any reason to believe that every single word in the Bible is the word of God. Why should I believe someone when they claim to speak for God?

So, the point of debate is this:

Is there actually any decent reason to believe that the Bible is 100% the word of God?

[joer]

HughDP

Thank you for your excellent post. It could not be more apropos for this thread. Unfortunately I can’t find anyone to accept anything a priori to begin this debate or even get them to suggest anything a priori to begin it. You saw the cop out Cephus used. Cephus is not willing to do the work with me. Cephus want’s me to spin my wheels while Cephus sits back and pokes fun or disparages anything I present. I believe that’s easy to see from the recent posts. Perhaps Cephus or anyone else would be willing to suggest an a priori starting point where we can BOTH work from.

HughDP said:

The sticking point between atheists and theists will always be Does God exist? and a high proportion of debates at some point touch on that question.

I think religious debates can sometimes benefit from the sort of approach scientific papers take, which is that the 'a priori' assumptions are stated at the start and the discussions must be contained within those assumptions.

It always difficult to come into a debate and accept assumptions which go against something one believes is a critical theological point, but I think it can be an educational and interesting challenge.

Cephus said:

You know it is impossible to prove a negative, hence I have nothing whatsoever to prove. You, claiming that God does exist, must present evidence to support that claim.

Get to work.

Joer said:

What’s the use of pursuing the argument if we’re not honestly going to consider the posits of each side? And considering doesn’t mean agreeing with your opponent it means pointing out what's wrong with your opponent’s argument as well of acknowledging any truth found in it. That way we can benefit from each other’s perception and position on the issue.

Now Cephus look at these following posts between OccamsRazor and Harvey1 on another thread. They are doing exactly what I’m suggesting it the quote immediately proceeding this paragraph. Why can’t I get you or anyone else in this thread engaged in that kind of fruitful exchange? Also notice how OccamsRazor invokes the classic atheist cop out, “you can’t prove a negative”. But then changes to, “I see no issue with attempting to prove that a long held belief is not true, rather not attempting such a thing is what hampers scientific study. This applies to proving that there was no creator to removing the AP.” In response to Havey1’s reply.

I see two intelligent human beings having a mutually productive debate without giving up their own positions. Now that’s what I’m looking for. Are you, or QED, or Dr. Proc or anybody willing to engage me in that kind of productive debate or are you just going to say:

hence I have nothing whatsoever to prove. You, claiming that God does exist, must present evidence to support that claim.

Get to work.

OccamsRazor said at http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... c&start=20

I also assert that atheism can never be proven to be true. An entity cannot be proven not to exist. I think that most atheists agree with this assertion.

Harvey1 at the same link said:

I don't agree that atheists are out to prove atheism. Why prove a belief that you are already convinced is correct? I was just pointing out that an atheist could be out to "prove" atheism if they viewed proof in a more scientific sense meaning that they wish to show with scientific evidence and computer simulation that there's no truth in the notion of a divine origin to the world. I don't think this would constitute a proof of God not existing, but I think there are many atheist scientists who believe it would and who would be eager to say that it is.

OccamsRazor at the same link said:

Largely I do not see a problem with this though (possibly I have an atheist bias). I see no issue with attempting to prove that a long held belief is not true, rather not attempting such a thing is what hampers scientific study. This applies to proving that there was no creator to removing the AP.

HughDP take a look here at what I proposed on April 9th. Not exactly setup the same as your "a priori" list. But basically the same thing, allowing us to proceed based on agreed upon starting parameters while leaving the opposition room to suggest their own.

On April 9th joer said:

Now there’s nothing from our perspective, as human beings, of the Almighty that wouldn’t be influenced or affected by us. So we can postulate that God exists without us, but in reality however we perceive, conceive or as you put it “imagine” that God exists could not exist with out us. So in a more or less intricate way, what God “really is” is intrinsically tied to us. So in a very real way imagined or otherwise as far as we (human kind) are concerned God would not exist without us. So if we accept the concept that we believers are part of God either real or imagined. Then we (All of us) can move on and investigate weather our relationship or lack thereof with God is real or imagined.

Would you care to take that step with me QED? Or would you purpose something else as a starting point?

HughDP, here’s another place where I try to get to a starting point with Cephus. But he ignored it.

O.K. Cephus let’s start out with a "hypothesis". We’ll pretend that the thousands of years of empirical data in the form arguments for and against the existence of God don’t exist, and we'll create our own empirical data as we proceed. Agreed?

So Dr. Proc the answer to your question posted on Wed Mar 29, 2006 5:07 pm:

I am disappointed...
The believers seem to be dropping out of this thread.
Are there any other believers in Biblical inerrancy that would like to take up their side of the argument?

Is there any compelling reason to believe the Bible is 100% the word of God?

Is that there was at least one believer willing to get to the root of the matter but here weren’t any Atheists willing to go there with him. We had one argue about AP then drop out, then another just make spurious comments and never enter into any productive discussions about the problem, and one keen poster, HughDP, who made some accurate observations like:

The sticking point between atheists and theists will always be Does God exist? and a high proportion of debates at some point touch on that question.

And he further made this excellent suggestion:

I think religious debates can sometimes benefit from the sort of approach scientific papers take, which is that the 'a priori' assumptions are stated at the start and the discussions must be contained within those assumptions.

And finally made an interesting observational conclusion:

It always difficult to come into a debate and accept assumptions which go against something one believes is a critical theological point, but I think it can be an educational and interesting challenge.

So the real question Dr. Proc should be:

Are there any atheists interested in and willing to do the WORK to enter into a fruitful discussion here and willing to take a scientific approach or any approach necessary to make this a productive work? If not, perhaps we can find another thread where that is occurring.

Be Well my friends.

[Cephus]

Are there any atheists interested in and willing to do the WORK to enter into a fruitful discussion here and willing to take a scientific approach or any approach necessary to make this a productive work? If not, perhaps we can find another thread where that is occurring.

Atheists, at least most of them, do not believe that there are no god(s), they simply see no reason to believe in them, regardless of what Harvey wants you to think. I simply pointed out to you that you cannot adequately discuss whether or not the Bible is the word of God if you haven't addressed the existence of God yet. It's like asking if "The Night Before Christmas" is the word of Santa Claus. You haven't established the existence of Santa, hence you cannot rationally discuss whether Charles Dickens wrote the teachings of the jolly old fat man.

All of the arguments in this thread rest a priori on the belief that God is real, yet that's jumping the gun in any rational discussion. Even your attempt to engage me in this thread is a demand that someone prove your assumption wrong, rather than taking your responsibility for proving yourself right in the first place.

You make an assumption, you DEMONSTRATE the assumption. It's no one's responsibility to prove you wrong, you have to show that your assumption is worthwhile to begin with.

[HughDP]

I simply pointed out to you that you cannot adequately discuss whether or not the Bible is the word of God if you haven't addressed the existence of God yet.

I'd have to disagree with that Cephus.

I think we're quite capable of accepting 'a priori' assumptions and yet still being able to discuss the relevance, consistency, logic and appeal of the material beneath those assumptions. We do it frequently when we read books, watch films, make plans, learn about science, history etc.

The problem is that something like religion is very emotive and - I will concede - it is often harder to accept those 'a prioris' when discussing it. There will inevitably be some drift and some reference to those 'core' questions occasionally, but I do think we're capable of doing it.

If we can't do it, we may as well just open an 'Is There A God?' thread and post in that forever more.

Although maybe it's me making assumptions here: personally I find it far easier to accept that there's a God (or god) than I do to accept the Christian incarnation of God and that the Bible represents His Word (I should point out that I don't as it happens think there's a god today).

Perhaps I don't appreciate how hard it is for others to make such an 'a priori' assumption up front. If that's the case I apologise for attempting to extrapolate a generalisation from my own feelings and beliefs.

[joer]

Cephus says

Atheists, at least most of them, do not believe that there are no god(s),

Isn’t that a double negative? By virtue of being a double negative wouldn’t that translate to: they (Atheists) believe there are god(s)? I’m pretty sure that’s not what you meant to say. Right?

he also said:

They (Atheists) simply see no reason to believe in them (gods)

Actually in my it’s been my experience on this site that more than “simply seeing no reason to believe in gods” atheists take a very active part in denying the gods OTHERS believe exist. And they make no small effort in driving that point home. Quite the contrary to what you’re saying, Cephus.


Then Cephus said:

I simply pointed out to you that you cannot adequately discuss whether or not the Bible is the word of God if you haven't addressed the existence of God yet.

I was the first one to point that out On Sun Apr 09, 2006 2:11 pm I don’t know why you keep repeating it.

Joer said:
Quote:
I mean really if you want to consider if the Bible is 100% the word of God, wouldn’t you first want to establish the existence or non-existence of God? Because if God doesn’t exist "The Bible" would be 0% the word of God.

Cephus continues with:

It's like asking if "The Night Before Christmas" is the word of Santa Claus. You haven't established the existence of Santa,

Actually the allegory is week so it’s a little confusing. Perhaps if you used “Santa Claus is coming to town” The connection to the word of God could be easier to make. Making a list. Naughty vs Nice, good vs. bad, urgings to be good rather than bad, consequences etc.

Cephus follows with:

hence you cannot rationally discuss whether Charles Dickens wrote the teachings of the jolly old fat man.

Maybe not, but you could discuss the “Life of our Lord” by Charles Dickens because there’s no controversy over whether or not he wrote that book! LOL

Then Cephus says:

All of the arguments in this thread rest a priori on the belief that God is real, yet that's jumping the gun in any rational discussion.

False. Not true. I presented an argument that rests a priori on if we accept the concept that we believers are part of God either real or imagined. Then we (All of us) can move on and investigate whether our relationship or lack thereof with God is real or imagined.

Now you Cephus continue to ignore that posit. I stated “IMAGINED” because atheists constantly argue that God or gods are imagined, fantasy, made-up, not real, etc. So by including imagined in the a priori it allows the atheists to back up there position. If I left it at just “real” of course then you would use your cop out. (can’t prove a negative)

Cephus follows with:

Even your attempt to engage me in this thread is a demand that someone prove your assumption wrong, rather than taking your responsibility for proving yourself right in the first place.

Not True! Wrong! It’s an attempt to get you involved in a fruitful and productive discussion of our positions. You back up your position of why I’m wrong and I’ll back up mine of why my position is valid.

Hugh DP said:

I'd have to disagree with that Cephus.

I think we're quite capable of accepting 'a priori' assumptions and yet still being able to discuss the relevance, consistency, logic and appeal of the material beneath those assumptions. We do it frequently when we read books, watch films, make plans, learn about science, history etc.

I have to agree with Hugh. He’s absolutely right.

So what do you say Cephus or anyone are you willing to enter into a discussion of our positions?

Thank You for your posts Cephus and Hugh.

[joer]

Cephus, since so many atheists argue that Santa Claus doesn’t exist. if we're going to debate the existence of God, we might as well get this argument out of the way so we can proceed to the next. According to: Microsoft Encarta 98 Encyclopedia. 1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Santa Claus does exist in this capacity:
“most adults view Santa as the embodiment of a spirit of giving”
Santa Claus is real to me in this capacity. So I disagree with you when you say Santa Claus doesn’t exist. I say Santa Claus exists “as the embodiment of a spirit of giving”.
additionally it states “… some Christians emphasize that the modern figure is derived from legends about a saint who symbolized love, caring, and generosity.” Actually it’s an historical fact that

the legend of Santa Claus can be traced back hundreds of years to a monk named St. Nicholas. It is believed that Nicholas was born sometime around 280 A.D. in Patara, near Myra in modern-day Turkey. Much admired for his piety and kindness, St. Nicholas became the subject of many legends. It is said that he gave away all of his inherited wealth and traveled the countryside helping the poor and sick. One of the best known of the St. Nicholas stories is that he saved three poor sisters from being sold into slavery or prostitution by their father by providing them with a dowry so that they could be married. Over the course of many years, Nicholas's popularity spread and he became known as the protector of children and sailors. His feast day is celebrated on the anniversary of his death, December 6. This was traditionally considered a lucky day to make large purchases or to get married. By the Renaissance, St. Nicholas was the most popular saint in Europe. Even after the Protestant Reformation, when the veneration of saints began to be discouraged, St. Nicholas maintained a positive reputation, especially in Holland.


American Origins. The American version of the Santa Claus figure received its inspiration and its name from the Dutch legend of Sinter Klaas, brought by settlers to New York in the 17th century. As early as 1773 the name appeared in the American press as St. A Claus, but it was the popular author Washington Irving who gave Americans their first detailed information about the Dutch version of Saint Nicholas. In his History of New York, published in 1809 under the pseudonym Diedrich Knickerbocker, Irving described the arrival of the saint on horseback (unaccompanied by Black Peter) each Eve of Saint Nicholas. This Dutch-American Saint Nick achieved his fully Americanized form in 1823 in the poem A Visit From Saint Nicholasmore commonly known as The Night Before Christmas by writer Clement Clarke Moore . Moore included such details as the names of the reindeer; Santa Claus's laughs, winks, and nods; and the method by which Saint Nicholas, referred to as an elf, returns up the chimney. (Moore's phrase lays his finger aside of his nose was drawn directly from Irving's 1809 description.)

The American image of Santa Claus was further elaborated by illustrator Thomas Nast who depicted a rotund Santa for Christmas issues of Harper's magazine from the 1860s to the 1880s. Nast added such details as Santa's workshop at the North Pole and Santa's list of the good and bad children of the world. A human-sized version of Santa Claus, rather than the elf of Moore's poem, was depicted in a series of illustrations for Coca-Cola advertisements introduced in 1931. In modern versions of the Santa Claus legend, only his toy-shop workers are elves. Rudolph, the ninth reindeer, with a red and shiny nose, was invented in 1939 by an advertising writer for the Montgomery Ward Company.

Modern Influences. The fully detailed modern image of Santa Claus plays a part in Christmas celebrations around the world. People are reminded of Santa Claus through advertising, greeting cards, decorations, and the annual appearance of Santas in department stores and shopping malls (in some cases accompanied by Mrs. Claus and Santa's elves). The figure of Santa Claus occurs in motion pictures for example, Miracle on 34th Street 1947) and in songs such as Santa Claus Is Coming to Town, 1932) and Here Comes Santa Claus, 1947). Children write letters to Santa Claus and set out milk and cookies on Christmas Eve as a snack for Santa.


The error that atheists make is that they take all these outward expressions in images and themes and stories as the as the “Real Santa Claus” and say “Santa Claus isn’t real, That’s just a jolly old fat man in a RED Suit!”

What they (the atheists) are missing is everything that they are saying is not real is actually a real manifestation of the embodiment of a spirit of giving that symbolizes love, caring, and generosity. vis a vis the RealSanta Claus!

Merry Christmas boys and girls! Ho HO HO!

[McCulloch]

Santa Claus does exist in this capacity: “most adults view Santa as the embodiment of a spirit of giving”
Santa Claus is real to me in this capacity. So I disagree with you when you say Santa Claus doesn’t exist. I say Santa Claus exists “as the embodiment of a spirit of giving”.
...
the legend of Santa Claus can be traced back hundreds of years to a monk named St. Nicholas.
...
The error that atheists make is that they take all these outward expressions in images and themes and stories as the as the “Real Santa Claus” and say “Santa Claus isn’t real, That’s just a jolly old fat man in a RED Suit!”

What they (the atheists) are missing is everything that they are saying is not real is actually a real manifestation of the embodiment of a spirit of giving that symbolizes love, caring, and generosity. vis a vis the Real Santa Claus!

If believers in God believed in God like you believe in Santa Claus, then I would not have any difficulties with it. If God were simply a personification of natural creation (like Mother Nature) and human love and self sacrifice (the Christ myth) then the resulting form of Christianity would be much more palatable and tolerant than it seems now.
But if people believed in Santa Clause the way that many Christians currently believe in God imagine the result!

[QED]

I absolutely agree with McCulloch. It seems incredibly likely to me that from the very dawn of mankind's existence we noticed our capacity for the various spirits of kindness, mercy, giving etc. and thought about all this in contrast to the more selfish instincts born of our evolutionary past. We might wonder where this spirit comes from; I can just imagine a Roman Emperor exercising his ability to grant the life of a lucky prisoner and meditating on the process afterwards.

I see this in a similar light to the way in which moving away from subsistence living freed up certain men to spend time thinking and planning for the benefit of society. Our brains have evolved to the point where we are released from the imperative of survival of the fittest yet I would argue that it is vestiges of this more brutal and selfish past that make kindness and mercy stand out as something of a novelty. At this point I can readily see people assuming that this spirit is being supplied from some external source when, in reality, it is a potential (something that can be quantified in game theory) that can only be realized at a certain stage of human development.

I find the coincidence of the many religions starting out at around the same time as Christianity, and the widespread use of written communication to be a strong indication that "man was getting his ideas down on paper as soon as he could". This seems like a far more plausible explanation for the flurry of divine activity that we are otherwise being asked to entertain. Some might wish to argue that God has always been whispering in our ears but the historical staging of events looks very much like the Bible is the word of man rationalising the world in the anthropomorphic terms he was most familiar with.

[Cephus]

The problem is that something like religion is very emotive and - I will concede - it is often harder to accept those 'a prioris' when discussing it. There will inevitably be some drift and some reference to those 'core' questions occasionally, but I do think we're capable of doing it.

The problem is that people are treating religion like it's something special and not subject to the basic laws of logic. In a discussion of "What aliens want", I'd expect people to demonstrate aliens are real first. In a discussion of "What Would Santa Do?" I'd want people to prove the existence of Santa. Just because some people have an emotional need for a deity doesn't let them off the hook when it comes to a discussion of this kind.

If we can't do it, we may as well just open an 'Is There A God?' thread and post in that forever more.

Since there isn't a shred of evidence whatsoever that there is a God, you're probably right.

[joer]

Hi McCulloch good to see you. McCullochsaid:

If believers in God believed in God like you believe in Santa Claus, then I would not have any difficulties with it. If God were simply a personification of natural creation (like Mother Nature) and human love and self sacrifice (the Christ myth) then the resulting form of Christianity would be much more palatable and tolerant than it seems now.

Interesting tenet McCulloch and QED agrees with you absolutely. So the next question I address to you both.

What if Mother Nature including us and Santa Claus and Christ and the Cosmos are a personification of God? If you follow the line of thinking put forth by QED early in this thread about AP that certainly would be possible but because of our position in the universe AP would render our position less tenable than that of Santa Claus in our own reality.
Additionally AP as discussed earlier would make it impossible for us to “prove” that Mother Nature including us and Santa Claus and Christ and the Cosmos are a personification of God. BUT it wouldn’t make it impossible! And for those of us who believe in God that is important.
And I should think the fact that it is possible albeit not provable should have more importance among atheists.
But I don’t know why it doesn’t. Is it because they are only interested in the provable?

McC continues:

But if people believed in Santa Clause the way that many Christians currently believe in God imagine the result!

That’s true McCulloch that would be convoluted. It would be like an Escher painting where an image would be consuming itself and reappearing again as it is consuming itself in endless repetition. God and Santa in an endless repetition of creating and consuming each other into eternity.

But imagine if people viewed a caterpillar’s life on the ground before the pupa stage the way atheists believe in our lives here on earth before the death stage!

Hello QED! Nice to see you back. You said:

I

absolutely agree with McCulloch. It seems incredibly likely to me that from the very dawn of mankind's existence we noticed our capacity for the various spirits of kindness, mercy, giving etc. and thought about all this in contrast to the more selfish instincts born of our evolutionary past.

Interesting imagery QED. You talk about a “capacity” indicating some other force or interaction necessary to gain what might be seen as positive spirits of kindness, mercy and giving and yet the negative (expressed as selfish) seems to be inherent in our being as instinctual.

What would that other force be that would activate the fulfillment of our capacity with the spirits of kindness, mercy and giving? Free will?

QED continues:

We might wonder where this spirit comes from; I can just imagine a Roman Emperor exercising his ability to grant the life of a lucky prisoner and meditating on the process afterwards.

It’s funny that you should mention that because that’s what Pontius Pilot did albeit he was only a Roman governor not an emperor, after be condemned Jesus and granted life to Barabas. He stood there in his interior alcove inside from the balcony, washing his hands over and over again agonizing over condemning an innocent man. This is according to his wife who was interested in and later became a follower of Christ’s teachings, in a letter she wrote to a relative that was later transcribed and stored in a monastery in Lebanon to be translated to English later by Kahlil Gibran and later publish in a book of ancient letters he translated in the early 20th century entitled Jesus, the Son of Man : His words and His deeds as told and recorded by those who knew Him. New York, 1928. (Not online.)

QED futher says:

I see this in a similar light to the way in which moving away from subsistence living freed up certain men to spend time thinking and planning for the benefit of society. Our brains have evolved to the point where we are released from the imperative of survival of the fittest yet I would argue that it is vestiges of this more brutal and selfish past that make kindness and mercy stand out as something of a novelty.

I find this statement unusual because you previously posit that that ”from the very dawn of mankind's existence we noticed our capacity for the various spirits of kindness, mercy, giving”
Then here you say, “Our brains have evolved to the point where we are released from the imperative of survival of the fittest yet I would argue that it is vestiges of this more brutal and selfish past that make kindness and mercy stand out as something of a novelty.

How could kindness and mercy be a novelty if we were aware of it from the “very dawn of mankind's existence”?

QED goes on to say:

At this point I can readily see people assuming that this spirit is being supplied from some external source when, in reality, it is a potential (something that can be quantified in game theory) that can only be realized at a certain stage of human development.

I find the coincidence of the many religions starting out at around the same time as Christianity, and the widespread use of written communication to be a strong indication that "man was getting his ideas down on paper as soon as he could". This seems like a far more plausible explanation for the flurry of divine activity that we are otherwise being asked to entertain.

Interesting scenario but it a bit obtuse in it’s purpose., isn't it?

Finally QED finishes with:

Some might wish to argue that God has always been whispering in our ears but the historical staging of events looks very much like the Bible is the word of man rationalizing the world in the anthropomorphic terms he was most familiar with.

In terms of the “anthropomorphic” is there anything else man can do besides rationalizing the world in terms he is familiar with, regardless of whether or not God, real or imagined, is whispering in his ears as you put it?

Cheers my friends. I await your repsonses.

[HughDP]

If we can't do it, we may as well just open an 'Is There A God?' thread and post in that forever more.

Since there isn't a shred of evidence whatsoever that there is a God, you're probably right.

That could depend upon what philosophical and theological definitions you're using for 'god' and 'evidence'.

I'm not saying that I believe there is or isn't a god, but I certainly have more sympathy for some arguments over others.