Is the bible Gods word?

[dunsapy]

This can be a large topic, because there are many ways to check the bible. From archeology, science, creation, history , prophesies, and what the bible says about itself.( is it full of contradictions?) etc. I certainly don't know everything. And some things are not fully explained in the bible ( or certain usage of words or meanings have been forgotten over time) . But there certainly is enough information to know if the bible is Gods word or not.

[dunsapy]

It can still claim gravity exists. And that evolution is happening.
I am curious as to what you think of the natural selection.
Doesn't it make sense that an organism that possesses traits that better help it reproduce will pass on those traits more readily (due to genetics and heritability) than an organism with traits that don't help it reproduce as readily or hinder its reproduction?

I have had science types say to me they can't prove gravity. I have always said that gravity is proved, but science doesn't know how it works. You can say evolution works , but there is no proof of it. Natural selection, is not a problem with the creation.
Darwin believed that what he called natural selection would favor those life-forms best suited to the environment, while less suitable life-forms would eventually die off. Modern evolutionists teach that as species spread and became isolated, natural selection chose those whose gene mutations made them most fit for their new environment. As a result, evolutionists postulate, these isolated groups eventually developed into totally new species. The evidence from research strongly indicates that mutations cannot produce entirely new kinds of plants or animals. Nevertheless, what proof do evolutionists provide to support the claim that natural selection chooses beneficial mutations to produce new species? A brochure published in 1999 by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the United States says: “A particularly compelling example of speciation [the evolution of new species] involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin’s finches.�
In the 1970’s, a research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant began studying these finches and discovered that after a year of drought, finches that had slightly bigger beaks survived more readily than those with smaller beaks. Since the size and shape of the beaks is one of the primary ways of determining the 13 species of finches, these findings were assumed to be significant. “The Grants have estimated,� continues the brochure, “that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.�
However, the NAS brochure neglects to mention some significant but awkward facts. In the years following the drought, finches with smaller beaks again dominated the population. Thus, Peter Grant and graduate student Lisle Gibbs wrote in the science journal Nature in 1987 that they had seen “a reversal in the direction of selection.� In 1991, Grant wrote that “the population, subjected to natural selection, is oscillating back and forth� each time the climate changes. The researchers also noticed that some of the different “species� of finches were interbreeding and producing offspring that survived better than the parents. Peter and Rosemary Grant concluded that if the interbreeding continued, it could result in the fusion of two “species� into just one within 200 years.
Back in 1966, evolutionary biologist George Christopher Williams wrote: “I regard it as unfortunate that the theory of natural selection was first developed as an explanation for evolutionary change. It is much more important as an explanation for the maintenance of adaptation.� Evolutionary theorist Jeffrey Schwartz wrote in 1999 that if Williams’ conclusions are correct, natural selection may be helping species to adapt to the changing demands of existence, but “it is not creating anything new.�
Indeed, Darwin’s finches are not becoming “anything new.� They are still finches. And the fact that they are interbreeding casts doubt on the methods some evolutionists use to define a species. In addition, they expose the fact that even prestigious scientific academies are not above reporting evidence in a biased manner.
ps ( this information came from JW's research, I do not claim it as my own)

[dunsapy]

Well, I am glad that you have an easy one. Now, just show us where in the Bible it says that the Bible is inspired of God.

This will be the 3rd time I have quoted this, are you reading anything I say at all?

INSPIRATION
The quality or state of being moved by or produced under the direction of a spirit from a superhuman source. When that source is Jehovah, the result is a pronouncement or writings that are truly the word of God. The apostle Paul stated at 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is inspired of God.� The phrase “inspired of God� translates the compound Greek word the‧o′pneu‧stos, meaning, literally, “God-breathed� or “breathed by God.�

[McCulloch]

Well, I am glad that you have an easy one. Now, just show us where in the Bible it says that the Bible is inspired of God.

This will be the 3rd time I have quoted this, are you reading anything I say at all?

INSPIRATION
The quality or state of being moved by or produced under the direction of a spirit from a superhuman source. When that source is Jehovah, the result is a pronouncement or writings that are truly the word of God. The apostle Paul stated at 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is inspired of God.� The phrase “inspired of God� translates the compound Greek word the‧o′pneu‧stos, meaning, literally, “God-breathed� or “breathed by God.�

Then this will be the third time I have answered it. Are you reading what I write?

I agree that the writer of 2 Timothy states that all scripture is inspired of God. What the writer does not make clear, is what he means by all scripture. You are focusing on the wrong word. I have no argument with the word inspired and its interesting derivation from Greek.

The point is that, at the time he was writing, the Bible as such had not been compiled into a single volume. No one had made it clear that 3 John is scripture and the Gospel of Thomas is not. It seems to me that he could have only been referring to the books of Hebrew scripture. But my opinion in the matter is not relevant. By failing to make it clear what is meant by all scripture, this passage cannot be used to prove that the Bible is inspired of God. The First Epistle of Clement, the Didache and the Seven Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch were in circulation by the late first century. They are all scripture in the literal sense of the word.

Just to sum up. You have shown that one New Testament writer has claimed that all scripture is inspired of God. You have yet to show that, in this context, scripture means the Bible. Is that clear enough?

[dunsapy]

I agree that the writer of 2 Timothy states that all scripture is inspired of God. What the writer does not make clear, is what he means by all scripture. You are focusing on the wrong word. I have no argument with the word inspired and its interesting derivation from Greek.

The scriptures would be known by God , he inspired them. So when the writer says all scripture is inspired of God, that comes from inspiration. It mean all scripture is inspired by God.

[byofrcs]

It's different because you can right anything down in a book. As per science, claims based on observations are cross-checked by other scientists and anyone can run the experiments to see whether the results are true or not.

Now if I happen to write a book that follows the criteria of the bible, "Now as concerns the bible, there is archeology, as proof, there is prophecies of the bible that are proof, it claims to be from God, history proves the bible. What it says about creation does not conflict with science. There were 39 different writers over a 1500 year period of time, and is harmonious , with One theme, from start to finish. it explains all the big important questions. Even though it was written centuries ago, it talks about our day." Then after all this correlation I and the other writers are free to right whatever we feel like because the rest of the requirements have already been met. I mean who would know the difference if we had all this "evidence" backing our word as truth?

That true you can write anything down in a book. That in itself does not make it Gods word. You can write a book that is correct with history, and archeology. But that still doesn't make it Gods word. But to have accuracy, and prophecy ( fulfillment), correct with science ( when these things were unknown to the writers), written by 39 different writers, over 1500 years, and be harmonious, is more than just amazing. There is enough there that anyone interested in truth, has to at least look at it.
The idea of circular thinking, when it comes to the bible , is really the ingenious part of this. Look at it this way. The bible really interprets itself . Most Christian religions, have not used this over the centuries. Instead what they have done is used their own understanding of things. That is why you see all the hypocrisy, and unchristian like actions . If anyone tries to tamper with the bible, then this can be found out , by an fresh look at it. ( using other scriptures to confirm understanding) Also that the bible is in harmony with the rest of the bible. God has hidden his word from ones without, the right attitude, or motivation, that he is looking for. This also conceals his word awaiting for when the time is right, for certain actions to take place. The bible was written about people in the past, but is for the people of our time. This has to be inspired because, there is no other way to have this happen.

You are a stranger to the truth when you say "correct with science ( when these things were unknown to the writers".

There is nothing in the Bible (or the Koran for that matter) that was not known to the writers at the time. Any other claim is a false witness.

Any prophesy in the Bible are the usual self-fulfilling prophesies. Any other claim is a false witness.

As per the rules, I'm not asking you to "prove that the Bible is true" because what is true about the Bible is that it does not have science and it doesn't prophesy. I'm not questioning what it says, only your false interpretation because that is what is in error.

[dunsapy]

You are a stranger to the truth when you say "correct with science ( when these things were unknown to the writers".

Actually you are kind of right here. I should have said the thinking of the time. ( many thought the earth was flat for instance. ) The writers were not thinking in scientific terms, they wrote down what they were inspired to write. About the creation and other things. They did not know the scientific scrutiny that would happen in our time. This is what I meant.

There is nothing in the Bible (or the Koran for that matter) that was not known to the writers at the time. Any other claim is a false witness.

They did not know how prophecies would be fulfilled, there are many things they didn't know, how they related to our day.

Any prophesy in the Bible are the usual self-fulfilling prophesies. Any other claim is a false witness.

There are many prophecies that, have been fulfilled and been recorded in history.

As per the rules, I'm not asking you to "prove that the Bible is true" because what is true about the Bible is that it does not have science and it doesn't prophesy. I'm not questioning what it says, only your false interpretation because that is what is in error.

Like what ?

[dunsapy]

The point is that, at the time he was writing, the Bible as such had not been compiled into a single volume. No one had made it clear that 3 John is scripture and the Gospel of Thomas is not. It seems to me that he could have only been referring to the books of Hebrew scripture. But my opinion in the matter is not relevant. By failing to make it clear what is meant by all scripture, this passage cannot be used to prove that the Bible is inspired of God. The First Epistle of Clement, the Didache and the Seven Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch were in circulation by the late first century. They are all scripture in the literal sense of the word.

Just to sum up. You have shown that one New Testament writer has claimed that all scripture is inspired of God. You have yet to show that, in this context, scripture means the Bible. Is that clear enough?

Jesus and the apostle's quoted from the Hebrew scriptures, all the time. Jesus knew that law that was recorded and that he fulfilled. If Jesus had any doubt that the Hebrew scriptures were incorrect he would have mentioned that. But that is not the case. Besides some of the writings were for our time. Noah and the flood account parallels our time.

[McCulloch]

I agree that the writer of 2 Timothy states that all scripture is inspired of God. What the writer does not make clear, is what he means by all scripture. You are focusing on the wrong word. I have no argument with the word inspired and its interesting derivation from Greek.

I have read this three times and it still does not make sense to me.

The scriptures would be known by God , he inspired them. So when the writer says all scripture is inspired of God, that comes from inspiration. It mean all scripture is inspired by God.

The scriptures would be known by God, he inspired them.

Uh yes.

So when the writer says all scripture is inspired of God, that comes from inspiration. It mean all scripture is inspired by God.

Fine. These are scripture:

1. �satrú
   • The Poetic Edda, especially including the Hávamál
   • The Younger Edda
2. Ayyavazhi
   • The Akilattirattu Ammanai
   • The Arul Nool
3. Bahá'í Faith
   • The Kitáb-i-Aqdas
   • Kitáb-i-Ã�qán
4. Bön
   • Bon Kangyur and Tengyur
5. Buddhism
   • The Tipitaka aka Pali Canon
   • Diamond Sutra
   • Infinite Life Sutra
   • Amitabha Sutra
   • Contemplation Sutra
   • Lotus Sutra
   • Mahavairocana Sutra
   • Vajrasekhara Sutra
   • Tibetan Kangyur and Tengyur
6. Christianity
   • The Books of the Bible
   • The Apocrypha
   • The Book of Mormon
   • The Pearl of Great Price
   • The Doctrine and Covenants
   • Gospel of Marcion
   • Nag Hammadi library
7. Confucianism
   • The Five Classics
   • The Four Books
8. Discordianism
   • The Principia Discordia
   • The Apocrypha Discordia
9. Druze
   • Rasa'il al-hikmah (Epistles of Wisdom)
10. Etruscan religion
    • Cippus Perusinus
    • Liber Linteus
    • Pyrgi Tablets
    • Tabula Cortonensis
11. Hermeticism
    • Hermetica, Emerald Tablet and associated writings
12. Hinduism
    • Rig Veda
    • Sama Veda
    • Yajur Veda
    • Atharva Veda
    • Brahmanas
    • Aranyakas
    • Upanishads
    • Bhagavad Gita
    • Ramayana
    • Bhagavata Purana
    • Tantras
    • Ashtavakra Gita
    • Gherand Samhita
    • Gita Govinda
    • Hatha Yoga Pradipika
    • Purva Mimamsa Sutras
    • Brahma Sutras of Vyasa
    • Sakta Tantras[...]
13. Islam
    • Qur'an (Islamic Scripture, Al-Quran, 'the Recitation')
    • Hadith (sayings and actions of Muhammad)
14. Judaism
    • Torah
    • Nevi'im(prophets)
    • Ketuvim
    • Mishnah
    • Gemara
15. Mandaeanism
    • The Ginza Rba
    • Book of the Zodiac
    • Qolusta, Canonical Prayerbook
    • Book of John the Baptizer
    • Diwan Abatur, Purgatories
    • 1012 Questions
    • Coronation of Shislam Rba
    • Baptism of Hibil Ziwa
    • Haran Gawaita
16. Manichaeism
    • The Arzhang
17. Pastafarian
    • The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
18. Rastafari
    • the Holy Piby
    • the Kebra Negast
    • The speeches and writings of Haile Selassie I
    • Royal Parchment Scroll of Black Supremacy
19. Samaritanism
    • The Samaritan Pentateuch
20. Satanism
    • The Satanic Bible
21. Scientology
    • Dianetics
22. Sikhism
    • The Guru Granth Sahib
    • The Dasam Granth Sahib
23. Shinto
    • The Kojiki
    • The Nihon Shoki or Nihongi
24. Taoism
    • The Tao Te Ching
    • The Zhuangzi
25. Unification Church
    • Divine Principle
    • Wolli Hesul (Explanation of the Divine Principle)
    • Wolli Kangron (Exposition of the Divine Principle)
26. Zoroastrianism
    • The Yasna
    • The Visparad
    • The Yashts,
    • The Vendidad

They are all inspired by God. Right!?

[McCulloch]

Just to sum up. You have shown that one New Testament writer has claimed that all scripture is inspired of God. You have yet to show that, in this context, scripture means the Bible. Is that clear enough?

Jesus and the apostle's quoted from the Hebrew scriptures, all the time. Jesus knew that law that was recorded and that he fulfilled. If Jesus had any doubt that the Hebrew scriptures were incorrect he would have mentioned that. But that is not the case. Besides some of the writings were for our time. Noah and the flood account parallels our time.

I will even go as far as to agree that some of the writers of the New Testament considered the Hebrew Scriptures to be inspired of God. Now you've only got 27 writings left that you have not shown to be inspired of God, according to the Bible. Although, you really have not shown any of the Hebrew Scriptures which are not referenced in the New Testament to be God inspired either.

By the way, Jude quotes from First Enoch. Does that make First Enoch part of the scriptures? 1 Kings 11:41 refers to the Acts of Solomon; 2 Samuel 1:18 refers to the book of Jashar; Numbers 21:14 refers to Book of the Wars of the LORD. These must be scripture too.

[dunsapy]

They are all inspired by God. Right!?

I only claim the bible to be inspired. There are many religions, in the world.
And even in Christendom there are many different ideas. ( churches). The bible says not to take away from it and not to add to it. It is complete. Satan uses religion to mislead people.
Though I did notice that you missed one.... Science.