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.

[McCulloch]

Where is God's Word found?

I think that is an excellent question. So thank you for asking it. I have discovered that it is in three containers. One container is the Old Testament. Another container is the New Testament. The third container is the Book of Mormon.

I think that it might be important for you to show how you discovered this and how you verified that any of these three containers has God's Word.

Your related question was, "How do I know?" Thanks for that question too. To begin an answer, let me mention that I first discovered that the Bible was not correct. This discovery is mentioned twice in the Bible. The first place is Matthew 13:33 which reads, "Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." A second place is Luke 13:21 which reads, "It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."

The Bible is incorrect yet the Word of God. How can that be? Did you mean incomplete rather than incorrect?

[thisgoodriddle]

Where is God's Word found?

I think that is an excellent question. So thank you for asking it. I have discovered that it is in three containers. One container is the Old Testament. Another container is the New Testament. The third container is the Book of Mormon.

I think that it might be important for you to show how you discovered this and how you verified that any of these three containers has God's Word.

Your related question was, "How do I know?" Thanks for that question too. To begin an answer, let me mention that I first discovered that the Bible was not correct. This discovery is mentioned twice in the Bible. The first place is Matthew 13:33 which reads, "Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened." A second place is Luke 13:21 which reads, "It is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."

The Bible is incorrect yet the Word of God. How can that be? Did you mean incomplete rather than incorrect?

No, I meant that the Bible is incorrect. This is possible because it contains more than the words which proceeded out of the mouth of God. Those additional words are the part that is incorrect. Your other question was: how did I discover this situation? To condense, after I noticed that the Bible reported that it had been added to, I searched it in order to see if a way to remove the additions had been provided. Eventually, I found that a way had indeed been provided to remove the additions. First at Deuteronomy 19:15 which reads, "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. The second mention is at Matthew 18:16 which reads, "But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." The third mention is at 2 Corinthians 13:1 which reads, "This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." Their commonality, which is the way to remove the additions, reads, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."

[TXatheist]

No, I meant that the Bible is incorrect. This is possible because it contains more than the words which proceeded out of the mouth of God. Those additional words are the part that is incorrect.

You bring up a good point. Some claim that the bible is the word of god and inerrant. But some books, like the letters from Paul to the churches, are nothing more than a mortal man's words; his thoughts and beliefs. Unless Paul was as perfect as Jesus or the holy spirit grabbed hold of him and wrote the letters using his hand, there is plenty of room for error in those writings. What's more, the bible we have now is a translation of what someone thought Paul meant in his letters which were only his beliefs about Christianity based on what he was taught. Isn't this considered third-hand knowledge? It would be quite a stretch to claim that that is the divine, inerrant word of god, would it not?

[thisgoodriddle]

No, I meant that the Bible is incorrect. This is possible because it contains more than the words which proceeded out of the mouth of God. Those additional words are the part that is incorrect.

You bring up a good point. Some claim that the bible is the word of god and inerrant. But some books, like the letters from Paul to the churches, are nothing more than a mortal man's words; his thoughts and beliefs. Unless Paul was as perfect as Jesus or the holy spirit grabbed hold of him and wrote the letters using his hand, there is plenty of room for error in those writings. What's more, the bible we have now is a translation of what someone thought Paul meant in his letters which were only his beliefs about Christianity based on what he was taught. Isn't this considered third-hand knowledge? It would be quite a stretch to claim that that is the divine, inerrant word of god, would it not?

It would be a stretch for several reasons. Let us suppose, for the benefit of discussion, that the most high God actually said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Unless He is a hypocrite, He would do as He says to do. So He would preserve His neighbor's word as well as His own, and He would preserve it in the same place. Given that God would do this, it then logically follows that God would also provide a way to know which words where whose. God did provide a way to know which words were whose. I mentioned that way in a previous post.

[kayky]

How do you apply this three witness thing to the Bible?

[thisgoodriddle]

How do you apply this three witness thing to the Bible?

As Dr. J. Vernon McGee was wont to say, "...where the rubber meets the road." Yes indeed, theory is all well and good; but how do you actually do it? Perhaps showing an actual example will suffice as an answer. Instead of showing it here, I will simply link to an existing result. (http://www.thisgoodriddle.com/establish ... /010-e.htm) But how did I obtain that result? I used Theophilos which is a free KJV of the Bible, with a program which will search the KJV for a word, group of words, or an exact phrase. In this particular case, a search for the words "mouth of two or three witnesses", in any sequence, returns 4 verses, the three shown in the result, and one more which was more distantly related to them.
So I started with the first sentence of Matthew and searched the other three Gospels for similar verses. If none were found, the search was widened to the rest of the New Testament. If none were found, the search was widened to the Old Testament. Repeat for the next verse of Matthew, then the verses of Mark, then Luke, then John. This is a tedious procedure; but it worked. 19 months later, the first 135 paragraphs had been discovered. Although more have been discovered since; more still remain to be discovered, mainly in the Old Testament, but some in the New Testament too. My attention is nevertheless not now on discovery of more of the message of the most high God, it is instead on understanding what was meant by what was said and done.

[McCulloch]

No, I meant that the Bible is incorrect. This is possible because it contains more than the words which proceeded out of the mouth of God. Those additional words are the part that is incorrect. Your other question was: how did I discover this situation? To condense, after I noticed that the Bible reported that it had been added to, I searched it in order to see if a way to remove the additions had been provided. Eventually, I found that a way had indeed been provided to remove the additions. First at Deuteronomy 19:15 which reads, "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. The second mention is at Matthew 18:16 which reads, "But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." The third mention is at 2 Corinthians 13:1 which reads, "This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." Their commonality, which is the way to remove the additions, reads, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."

I am trying to make some sense out of this, but it is difficult because you seem to be hurrying by some necessary steps. Perhaps if you could address a few questions, it might clear things up for me.

1. How did you determine that any of what is in the Bible is from God?
2. How did you determine what the third witness is?

[thisgoodriddle]

No, I meant that the Bible is incorrect. This is possible because it contains more than the words which proceeded out of the mouth of God. Those additional words are the part that is incorrect. Your other question was: how did I discover this situation? To condense, after I noticed that the Bible reported that it had been added to, I searched it in order to see if a way to remove the additions had been provided. Eventually, I found that a way had indeed been provided to remove the additions. First at Deuteronomy 19:15 which reads, "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. The second mention is at Matthew 18:16 which reads, "But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." The third mention is at 2 Corinthians 13:1 which reads, "This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." Their commonality, which is the way to remove the additions, reads, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."

I am trying to make some sense out of this, but it is difficult because you seem to be hurrying by some necessary steps. Perhaps if you could address a few questions, it might clear things up for me.

1. How did you determine that any of what is in the Bible is from God?
2. How did you determine what the third witness is?

Hello McCulloch:
Thank you for your questions.

First one was: how did I determine that anything in the Bible is from God? One of the implications of the perception of space is that there are separate things. One of the implications of there being separate things is that they are not self-existent. That is, they are parts of a virtual reality. Given that I am a cartoon character in a virtual reality, it seemed possible to me that the ultimate originator (UO) of the virtual reality might have interacted with the cartoon characters in the guise of a cartoon character; and/or provided some information to the cartoon characters. If the UO had interacted with the cartoon characters, or had provided information, or both, then the interaction and/or info would probably have been considered sacred by the cartoon characters. So I began reviewing the documents which had been labeled sacred. At some point in my review, I realized that only one of them reported that additions had been made to it, and then not removed. So that discovery marked that so-called sacred document (the New Testament) as being different than all of the others. I therefore focused my attention on it. One feature of the NT was that the verses, which reported that additions had been made and not removed, mentioned that it (the NT) was one of a group of three documents to which additions had been made and not removed. It seemed probable to me that one of the other two documents was the Old Testament. So when I searched to see if a way had been provided to remove the additions, I included the OT in the search. At some point in my search, I realized that a way to remove the additions had indeed been provided. It was mentioned once in the OT and twice in the NT. The way to remove the additions is the commonality of Deuteronomy 19:15, Matthew 18:16, and 2 Corinthians 13:1. Their commonality reads, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." So I used this method on the so-called Gospels, and obtained 135 paragraphs of information which eventually became the homepage of http://www.thisgoodriddle.com

Your second question was: how did I determine what the third witness is? It seemed probable to me that the third witness, or measure of meal, would have the same or similar topics as the other two documents. Two such similar documents are the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon. Although I discovered that the Qur'an mentioned many of the same people and places and events, I also discovered that the Qur'an did not quote any parts of the NT or the OT in the way that the NT (or OT) quoted books in it which had been written by different authors, or the way in which books of the NT quoted books in the OT, whereas the Book of Mormon did. I therefore realized that the Book of Mormon was the third document, witness, measure of meal instead of the Qur'an. It should be mentioned somewhere that the mutual quotations only work in the KJV, not the NIV or any other version. I have no idea why that is true, except that the Book of Mormon quotes the KJV. So that is a clue that the KJV should be used for making the comparisons to find the quotations, or at least the commonalities, albeit many of the commonalities are not quotations in the ordinary sense of the word "quotations".

Thanking you for your questions, and your patience to read a lengthy reply.

[McCulloch]

[McCulloch's] First one [question] was: how did I determine that anything in the Bible is from God? One of the implications of the perception of space is that there are separate things. One of the implications of there being separate things is that they are not self-existent. That is, they are parts of a virtual reality.

You lost me at this point. There are separate things. It does not follow that the separate things are individually or together not self-existent. I have no idea what you mean by a virtual reality. Is it that you mean that our reality is not real but virtual?

Given that I am a cartoon character in a virtual reality, it seemed possible to me that the ultimate originator (UO) of the virtual reality might have interacted with the cartoon characters in the guise of a cartoon character; and/or provided some information to the cartoon characters.

It would seem so. It would also seem that you have determined that the alleged communication from the creator based not on facts but on your it seemed possible.

If the UO had interacted with the cartoon characters, or had provided information, or both, then the interaction and/or info would probably have been considered sacred by the cartoon characters. So I began reviewing the documents which had been labeled sacred.

Oh, really? All of them? or just the western Christian tradition?

At some point in my review, I realized that only one of them reported that additions had been made to it, and then not removed. So that discovery marked that so-called sacred document (the New Testament) as being different than all of the others. I therefore focused my attention on it. One feature of the NT was that the verses, which reported that additions had been made and not removed, mentioned that it (the NT) was one of a group of three documents to which additions had been made and not removed. It seemed probable to me that one of the other two documents was the Old Testament.

Did it ever occur to you that what you call the Old Testament is not one document?

[thisgoodriddle]

[McCulloch's] First one [question] was: how did I determine that anything in the Bible is from God? One of the implications of the perception of space is that there are separate things. One of the implications of there being separate things is that they are not self-existent. That is, they are parts of a virtual reality.

You lost me at this point. There are separate things. It does not follow that the separate things are individually or together not self-existent. I have no idea what you mean by a virtual reality. Is it that you mean that our reality is not real but virtual?

Given that I am a cartoon character in a virtual reality, it seemed possible to me that the ultimate originator (UO) of the virtual reality might have interacted with the cartoon characters in the guise of a cartoon character; and/or provided some information to the cartoon characters.

It would seem so. It would also seem that you have determined that the alleged communication from the creator based not on facts but on your it seemed possible.

If the UO had interacted with the cartoon characters, or had provided information, or both, then the interaction and/or info would probably have been considered sacred by the cartoon characters. So I began reviewing the documents which had been labeled sacred.

Oh, really? All of them? or just the western Christian tradition?

At some point in my review, I realized that only one of them reported that additions had been made to it, and then not removed. So that discovery marked that so-called sacred document (the New Testament) as being different than all of the others. I therefore focused my attention on it. One feature of the NT was that the verses, which reported that additions had been made and not removed, mentioned that it (the NT) was one of a group of three documents to which additions had been made and not removed. It seemed probable to me that one of the other two documents was the Old Testament.

Did it ever occur to you that what you call the Old Testament is not one document?

Thank you for your additional questions because they revealed that you did not ask them because of a desire to know, you asked them because you doubt the correctness of the report. If they had been asked because of a desire to know, then you would have benefited from answers. But, if you asked them because of unbelief, then answers would probably not benefit you. When Jesus was questioned because of unbelief, he provided asnwers. But I am not Jesus; so when I perceive (rightly or wrongly) that a question is asked because of unbelief, I give up. 'Bye.