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]

QED thank for your post. It stands well when it's within the bounds of your post. But (here it comes the introduction to the contradiction again) how well does it stand with the perspective of just one other human being.

It’s really quite easy to sit back and marvel at the world and the way it suits us. Everything seems perfectly matched to its apparent purpose and we can only stand in awe and amazement at the evident organization seen in nature. From the cycles of the skies and seasons to the providence of the land -- everything looks as though it might have been put there especially for us. And whosoever put it there must have been thinking of our needs and must also be mightily powerful to engineer everything in this way.

Your first paragraph makes it seem like everything is hunky dory here on our little spinning sphere. And it alludes to a mighty engineer

“whosoever …must also be mightily powerful to engineer everything in this way.”

Who made everything just the way we need it to be. I don’t know about you but especially in recent years with the tsunami’s earthquakes hurricanes and natural disasters of the likes many of us haven’t seen in our lifetime, makes it look like that engineer better get another calculator when that Mighty Engineer makes his next world.

I was disappointed that you next paragraph gave such a weak historical explanation of the origin and development of Faith and Belief in God through the ages. But I guess this is just “a post” Right? Or course you wouldn’t want to give too much support to the opposite point of view or it might make your position look weaker. Right? Anyway I thought you’d give it a little more strength.

This is just about the only conclusion we can reasonably expect from people taking everything at face value in ages past and would be so obvious to them that it would surely inspire a great deal of faith and belief in that which cannot actually be seen. This is no doubt why so many different ideas about God(s) have occurred to men at various times. After all, Monotheism is not the only expression of faith in there being some higher powers that control the world and hence give sustenance to man

.

The next paragraph begins to dump the opposition.

So historically speaking faith is bound to be very strong but (we all know the BUT is) it is also very possibly misguided as well, for modern understanding of the capacity for the world to organize itself into the harmonious structures we see throws up numerous ambiguities.

I think the numerous ambiguities were known thousands of years ago. It's at least apparent since the beginning of written history and since that was based on thousands of years of oral history that preceded it, I guess we can “safely” assume that those numerous ambiguities as well as all of the ones waiting to be discovered already existed.

Critical thinkers will be quick to point out that

And they always will be quick to point out.

Any living thing that is adapted to an environment has two ways of viewing providence.

I’m sure they found more than two.

One is the traditional view

Should'nt it say “One tradition view is" rather than "One is 'the' traditional view"?

That nature has bent to the needs of the individual,

Oh that must have been the Moses parting the Red Sea part. – nature bent to the need of the individual. LOL good one.

but the evidence is now overwhelming that it is the other way around, with life adapting to whatever conditions are available

.

Correct. My daughters would say “Duh” thinking it was a euphemism for No *hit. But I prefer Correct.

And now the coup de tat.

Despite the fact that it might be argued that this is how the divine plan was actually implemented,

I agree it could be argued.

it runs counter to what we are told in the "users guide to existence" that some call the holy bible,

I haven’t heard that reference before. I have heard it called “Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth” I thought that was cute acronym.

And here comes the coup de grace.

The last line where you side step two good arguments.

and as such I feel it cannot therefore be the word of God

This one you avoid arguing the percentage leaving it at 0%. I guess that’s fair but not fun or educational.

And on this one you avoid the existence of God argument. Which logically I figured would be a precedent necessary to carry on the % of the Word of God in the Bible argument. Oh Well!
Another post. another time.

even if he does exist (which I very much doubt).

O.K. QED I guess I’ll just have to launch into it and see if you help me out. I was looking forward to getting into string theory, how science is the discovery of God’s creation, and stuff like that.

Let’s see how do you prove something that can’t be proven empirically? The reality of God is based on faith and belief. And somebody who is willing to explore the esoteric theorized realities of science that have not yet been proven but refuses to do the same thing in the field of Faith and Belief. Would you call that open mindedness or deselective reasoning?

Just as in evolution certain evolutionary paths hit a dead end, but that doesn’t stop the scientist from exploring more. Someone who is willing to seek the ethereal meanings in science but refuses to recognize the ethereal indications of a creator Being, what’s that? Someone is dedicated to blocking the exploration of such ideas of Faith as if in reaction to the dedication of the Inquisition to blocking scientists in the exploration and discoveries of scientific ideas centuries before. Is that right?

Just as the consolidation of five seemingly disparate lines of thought on string theory into the “M” theory opened up a multitude of possibilities of new discoveries and ways of looking at things that will hopefully achieve the impossible task of unifying Gravitational theory and Quantum Theory. I mean God (used here again only as a manner of expression) isn’t it exciting? I see no unbridgeable difference between science and spirituality. Some day I to expect a unifying theory of those two ideas as they are not disparate as they appear. We just need to look for the connections. What’s the common denominator?

You know QED you made a pretty interesting statement in your previous post:

Now there are some mighty impressive structures that have been put in place over the last few thousand years. Men have laboured hard to create a coherent and organized presence for the almighty here on Earth. Living as I do not far from the ruins of Glastonbury Abbey I have often stood in awe and admiration for the inspiration of men in the past. But every work, be it painting, hymn or entire cathedral is crafted by men to a plan proposed by men. There is something inevitable about all this, something that is bound to occur to sentient beings like us if we ponder extremes.

As you know man is still labouring (ou British usage) hard to create those structures as I’ve mentioned with the string theory and such. But what is the highest structure that man can postulate? Wouldn’t the Creator of Everything, Basis of Everything, Source of Everything theory, qualify for that. 50 years ago science was debunking the GOD of the archaic Religion of that time. But as the concept of God develops with the advances of science how could we know that we won’t reach our highest structure: The basis of everything, The understanding of everything? No my friend QED we’re travelling this road together right now. You see us as separate BUT I see us together. You’re unwittingly discovering the God that I postulate and you deny.

Who knows perhaps when we find out what the other 7 dimensions of “M” theory are or the proof of the postulation of the graviton and the expected confirmation at the time of completion of the atom smasher in Scandinavia that I believe is 7 times more powerful than our current most powerful smasher, we may find some new esoteric meanings to the GOD theory. Exciting isn’t it. Also there’s the expected discovery of heavy tiny synchronous particles that are counterparts to our known electrons, protons, neutrons etc. I wonder if any of these are comparable to the basic unit of matter? If we find that perhaps we will have another clue to the Great Source and Center. You guessed it GOD. (Guardian of Destiny for lack of a better acronym)

Thank You for your patience QED. Lead me to my source.

P.S.

You said that:

Doc Proc is asking "Is there actually any decent reason to believe that the Bible is 100% the word of God?" This is a very fair question

I don't think it's a fair question because I don't believe Doc believes in the existence of God. So the 100% is irrelevant. Is should just say "...is the word of God" Yes or No Then it would be fair question not a leading question. Do you know what I mean?

Be well my friends. All positive direction and affirmation be with you!

[QED]

joer - I understand what you're saying very well. There is always a way of redefining God to be something other than the popular concept, the one we are are presented by the custodians of the various religious traditions. What tends to happen next is that this new God is then held up as a vindication of the other older traditions. Well I don't think that's really justified. The bible tells us all sorts of details which are claimed to be the actual word of God, something audible that boomed into to ears of men. Just how likely is this given the new description of God that is being proposed by some? Perhaps Paul Davies book should have been titled "The New God and the New Physics"

I think there's plenty of history showing how we think by analogy. But analogy often makes for poor conjectures, let alone proofs. I think my simple point about the idea of a creator being inevitable in the human mind holds true. With an appreciation of the Anthropic Principle we have widely different ways of looking at things.

For a history of the clashes between the earliest Philosophies relating to this subject I refer to the first section of Barrow and Tiplers book "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.". My point is that the apparent evidence for design in the complexity of things is highly compelling for many and tends to make the argument much more one-sided than is really justified. That's all there is to say really. Perhaps you could find the time to set out what it is that you find so intriguing in the ideas coming out of research into Quantum Gravity. It might make an interesting topic for debate

[joer]

joer - I understand what you're saying very well.

That’s funny. It by your response it doesn’t seem so.

There is always a way of redefining God to be something other than the popular concept,

Redefining God sounds like we are the ones creating him. Where it is actually more like we discover new ways of perceiving things in a way that makes more sense. The way it appears that “M” or “string” is going to help to make more sense of issues in physics that were previously confounding. Now did somebody sit down and redefine Physics in a new way resulting in “string” theory. Or was in more like a voyage of discovery looking at different ways of perception and discovering a way of perception that was always there but had never been seen before?

Now that it has been seen we are applying that NEW way of looking at things and “shedding light” (figuratively speaking) on old concepts. Now the “light” of this new perception (new way of seeing things) doesn’t vindicate the older traditional ways of looking at physics it actually exposes the limitations of those old traditions ways. Some parts of the tradition ways are still valid but other parts pail and fade away in the light of the new ways of perception.

Why should you think that the evolution and progression of the understanding of GOD should be any different? Your statement doesn’t even attempt to perceive the corollaries between the evolution of the two concepts. Your words seem to indicate that you might accept the method of analysis and discovery described in the pursuit of Physics but not in the pursuit of God.

Don’t you think that is a double standard? What ever happened to, “what’s good for the Goose is good for the Gander”?

the one we are presented by the custodians of the various religious traditions.

They (the custodians) very seldom present the popular concept. They present the traditional concept.

What tends to happen next is that this new God is then held up as a vindication of the other older traditions.

Not true. What happens is the new concept is rejected by traditionalist as untrue and by skeptics as false because they don’t see it as any different than the traditional view that they steadfastly and automatically reject because of falseness and harm embedded in it by humankind.

Well I don't think that's really justified.

You’re right, if the new concept really did vindicate the old falsehoods. But as I said just like the new discoveries in Physics it sheds light on the falsehoods and exposes them.

The bible tells us all sorts of details which are claimed to be the actual word of God, something audible that boomed into to ears of men.

This is exactly what’s wrong with saying the bible is 100% the word of God without clarification and understanding of the limitations of humankind when bringing that Word to the ears of other humans. Thus what you belittled as: “Isn't this simply a list of things thought-up by mortal philosophers?” comes into play to help to understand and clarify the interpretation of the WORD of God.

So were back to where we were between 300 and 420 AD determining what really is the WORD of God and what isn’t.. Of course everybody still has an opinion and the traditionalists would still burn their opposition to the stake for blasphemy if they had the chance. Right 1John?

Just how likely is this given the new description of God that is being proposed by some?
Perhaps Paul Davies book should have been titled "The New God and the New Physics"

Not likely at all my friend QED.

I think there's plenty of history showing how we think by analogy.

I don’t know it I wouldn't say “plenty” but you could positively say “some”

But analogy often makes for poor conjectures, let alone proofs.

Again I wouldn’t say “often” . I mean even in geometry “proofs” are based on congruencies and things that are analogous. Right QED?

I think my simple point about the idea of a creator being inevitable in the human mind holds true.

I agree, and almost with out fail the “highest” idea that human mind will strive to attain.

With an appreciation of the Anthropic Principle we have widely different ways of looking at things.

I don’t know QED. I’m ignorant of that Anthropic Principle and would have to investigate to respond to that. But as I have already said, “I see no unbridgeable difference between science and spirituality. Some day I too expect a unifying theory of those two ideas as they are not disparate as they appear. We just need to look for the connections. What’s the common denominator?”

For a history of the clashes between the earliest Philosophies relating to this subject I refer to the first section of Barrow and Tiplers book "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.". My point is that the apparent evidence for design in the complexity of things is highly compelling for many and tends to make the argument much more one-sided than is really justified. That's all there is to say really. Perhaps you could find the time to set out what it is that you find so intriguing in the ideas coming out of research into Quantum Gravity. It might make an interesting topic for debate

If I can find the time to look at the first section of Barrow and Tiplers book "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle.", I'll comment on what you have said here in your last paragraph.

Have a good day QED. Be Well and prosper!

[DrProctopus]

So, um...

Any arguments in favor of the idea that the Bible is the word of God?

[DrProctopus]

So, um...

Anyone have any arguments in favor of the idea that the Bible is the word of God?

[joer]

Yes Doc! The same argument that hasn't been sufficiently addressed yet IMHO.

It is the Word of God qualified by:

an understanding of the concepts of
Inspiration,
Revelation,
Literary Genres in the Bible
The Parable
The Allegory
The Beast fable
The Short Story and Historical Novel
The Problem Story
The Speech as a Literary Device
Conditioned Thought Patterns
Sacred Writings vs. Inspired Writings
Poems in the Bible
The Prophets
Atonement Theory and Vicarious Suffering
Hebrew Philosophy
The Gospels
Apocalyptic Literature
How do you know what it is you are dealing with? Informed References.
Understanding the Situation
Your interaction with and understanding of the Bible forms the Word of God to you Today!
Jesus Christ – “The Word made Flesh” – “The Living Word of God”

As we develop our understanding of the Bible we enrich our understanding and active participation in Living the Word of God in our lives.

[QED]

I don’t know QED. I’m ignorant of that Anthropic Principle and would have to investigate to respond to that.

joer, we've both expressed some opinions. I maintain that the Bible is very much the word of man prior to his gaining a full appreciation of the various implications of the Anthropic Principle.

Even today many people still seem to think it's a miracle that the Earths atmosphere contains just the right ratio of gasses to sustain us. I'm sure you can see the fallacy in this thinking. I think this same mistaken perspective accounts for much of the very strong faith that motivated people to "get down on paper" all these early ideas -- as soon as paper was available.

[Cephus]

So, um...

Anyone have any arguments in favor of the idea that the Bible is the word of God?

Nope, mostly because no one has demonstrated that this God thing actually exists to begin with. Joer seems to think that just because there are pretty stories in the Bible that he likes, that must mean something. That about sums up this thread though.

[joer]

Anthropic principle
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In cosmology, the anthropic principle in its most basic form states the truism that any valid theory of the universe must be consistent with our existence as carbon-based human beings at this particular time and place in the universe. In other words, "If something must be true for us, as humans, to exist, then it is true simply because we exist." Attempts to apply this principle to develop scientific explanations in cosmology have led to some confusion and much controversy.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary now simplifies this definition to - conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist.

The controversial book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler (Oxford University Press) was published in 1986. In it Barrow, a cosmological scientist, and Tipler, a mathematical physicist, pioneered the anthropic principle in order to deal with the seemingly incredible coincidences that allow for our presence in a universe that appears to be perfectly set up for our existence. Everything from the particular energy state of the electron to the exact level of the weak nuclear force seems to be tailored for us to exist.

QED said:

joer, we've both expressed some opinions. I maintain that the Bible is very much the word of man prior to his gaining a full appreciation of the various implications of the Anthropic Principle.

The way I see it QED humankind in general still doesn't have, "a full appreciation of the various implications of the Anthropic Principle."
I'll bet most of them haven't even heard of it and I hadn't until you brought it up. So I don't understand why you just didn't say, "I maintain that the Bible is very much the word of man." Unless you think the Anthropic Principle somehow indicates the possibility of a God. I really don't' understand your point or purpose of introducing the Anthropic Principle.
Cephus said:

Nope, mostly because no one has demonstrated that this God thing actually exists to begin with. Joer seems to think that just because there are pretty stories in the Bible that he likes, that must mean something. That about sums up this thread though.

Actually Cephus it doesn't appear that anybody here is interested right now in understanding how the Word of God is interpreted out of the text of the Bible. As far as I'm concerned Cephus the demonstration of God's existence is all around you and through you but you can't even see it.

I tried to engage QED in a discussion of ideas with corollaries to scientific discoveries that would help others in understanding the quest to understand and discover God.

Cephus QED and others if denial and rejection of the existence of God is the purpose of this thread, it is succeeding wonderfully. If the exploration and discussion of varying ideas is the purpose if it's not failing it's not doing very well.

If you can't see the pursuit of the theory of God on at least a similar footing as the pursuit of other scientific unknowns, like the basic unit of matter, Unknown relationships and manifestations between matter and energy, then it will be difficult to see or understand God as humankind's concept of God evolves.
Peace be with you brothers!

[QED]

joer - the point of me raising the AP here is that it demonstrates the great potential for ambiguity in our appraisal of the universe or what some prefer to term "the creation". This latter set of people would consider the existence of God as an a priori proposition, feeling that the very nature of a universe so carefully set up for their existence is a justification for determining a deliberate act of creation through reason alone.

This is therefore a sort of spell that simply saying "I maintain that the Bible is very much the word of man." won't break. I'm therefore raising the matter addressed by the AP that our particular location within this universe is too impoverished for making trustworthy observations about the reasons behind all the appearances. Furthermore, I note that the various authors of the bible would have been very much under the spell that the AP breaks.

Unless you think the Anthropic Principle somehow indicates the possibility of a God.

There are different flavours of the AP, with prefixes like Weak Strong Final etc. and some are indeed used to indicate such possibilities. But the single important message that comes out of the AP is that there is more than enough scope for ambiguity. It really is hard getting some people to understand this fact, perhaps Douglas Adams might help...

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.