Written by God?

[Antigone]

Many times I hear Christians say the bible was "written by God." But not all Christians believe this, they believe one of two things instead: it was 'inspired' by God, or it was written by human hands and God had nothing to do with it. I often wonder how such a wide range of views about a religion's sacred text can be held. Its almost as if some people are compromizing so they can continue to be Christian.

Since there is such a wide range of views there must be a reason for it, maybe the Christian's stronge belief that God wrote the bible isn't in the bible; threrfor there is no bases for why they believe this??

This is a two part qeustion:
What is the basis of the belief that God wrote the bible (or inspired it and the very 'fact' he inspired it still means it is all true and NOT wronge in ay respect)? And what would be the 'proof' that God didn't write the bible? (For example, IF you believe the bible is inerrant because God wrote or inspired the bible, what would need to happen or what would you need to see in order to not believe that anymore?)

I look forward to the discussion and debate!

[Antigone]

Just to clarify:

Written by God: means he actually wrote it, or put words, thoughts and feelings in a human's head and, word for word, it was written down, axactly as God wanted it. Means person was 'taken over' by God.

Inspired by God: He put the words, thoughts and feeling in a human's head and it was written down. Difference is that God did not literally take over human's body. It might not be word for word but it is what God wants written down. and there are no errors.

[Metacrock]

Many times I hear Christians say the bible was "written by God." But not all Christians believe this, they believe one of two things instead: it was 'inspired' by God, or it was written by human hands and God had nothing to do with it. I often wonder how such a wide range of views about a religion's sacred text can be held. Its almost as if some people are compromizing so they can continue to be Christian.

Since there is such a wide range of views there must be a reason for it, maybe the Christian's stronge belief that God wrote the bible isn't in the bible; threrfor there is no bases for why they believe this??

This is a two part qeustion:
What is the basis of the belief that God wrote the bible (or inspired it and the very 'fact' he inspired it still means it is all true and NOT wronge in ay respect)? And what would be the 'proof' that God didn't write the bible? (For example, IF you believe the bible is inerrant because God wrote or inspired the bible, what would need to happen or what would you need to see in order to not believe that anymore?)

I look forward to the discussion and debate!

No one thinks that God actually picked up a pen and physically wrote the bible. Its' all a matter of how much control suppossedly had upon the finds of the authors. The reason for this doctrine is a development in the 19th century (1800s) called the doctrine of "verbal PLenary inspriation." Some American protestants were rebelling against moderity, alarmed by Darwin and Eviolution they forged the view point that the Bible is totally inerrent and litteral in every word. From there this view has grown to extreme versions.


Scripture became important as "the Bible" and was placed over as the major source of authoirity for Christians by Martin Luther in the Reformation. First Luther tried to prove his case for reforming the church based upon the words of Popes and saints and councils. These were considered the major sources of Authority for the Roman chruch in the middle ages and up to Luther's time (about 1515 Luther pinned the 95 thesis to the door of the chruch at Whittenberg and started the protestant reformation). But Luther could not prove that his popes and saints were better than the other guy's popes and saints. So he needed a trump card that would give him absolute authority over all Christian opinion, then he hit upon the Bible as the absolute.

The New Testament was canonized in a long process that went through many stages from about the early second centruy to the end of the fourth century. Here's a link where you can read about those developments:

http://www.doxa.ws/Bible/Canon_NT2.html


here's a link where I give my own view on inspiration

http://www.doxa.ws/Bible/Models_rev.html

[McCulloch]

Here is the summary paragraph.

The Bible is not the Perfect Revelation of God to humanity. Jesus is that perfect revelation. The Gospels are merely the record of Jesus' teachings, deposited with the communities and encoded for safe keeping in the list chosen through Apostolic backing to assure Christian identity. For that matter the Bible as a whole is a reflection of the experience of transformation and as such, since it was the product of human agents we can expect it to have human flaws. The extent to which those flaws are negligible can be judge the ability of that deposit of truth to adequately promote transformation. Christ authorizes the Apostles, the Apostles authorize the community, the community authorizes the tradition, and the tradition authorizes the canon.

To me, this sounds like a very good summary of the position held by traditionally liberal non-literalist Christianity.

[Metacrock]

Here is the summary paragraph.

The Bible is not the Perfect Revelation of God to humanity. Jesus is that perfect revelation. The Gospels are merely the record of Jesus' teachings, deposited with the communities and encoded for safe keeping in the list chosen through Apostolic backing to assure Christian identity. For that matter the Bible as a whole is a reflection of the experience of transformation and as such, since it was the product of human agents we can expect it to have human flaws. The extent to which those flaws are negligible can be judge the ability of that deposit of truth to adequately promote transformation. Christ authorizes the Apostles, the Apostles authorize the community, the community authorizes the tradition, and the tradition authorizes the canon.

To me, this sounds like a very good summary of the position held by traditionally liberal non-literalist Christianity.

Yea it is. So?

[Goose]

Just to clarify:

Written by God: means he actually wrote it, or put words, thoughts and feelings in a human's head and, word for word, it was written down, axactly as God wanted it. Means person was 'taken over' by God.

Inspired by God: He put the words, thoughts and feeling in a human's head and it was written down. Difference is that God did not literally take over human's body. It might not be word for word but it is what God wants written down. and there are no errors.

I agree that I think it is an extreme view to think that God in some way physically put pen to paper per se. My view might be considered on the conservative Christian side. I believe the Bible to be inspired by God but written and copied by humans. I think with some work and understanding we can get to inerrancy, but it's not necessary. I believe the Bible in its entirety to be the authority for Christianity. I think there are two keys one must consider regardless of whether you accept inerrancy or not.

1. There is good evidence to show the Bible is not simply a book of myths. There is a very good degree of accurate historicity in the Bible. There is also a high degree of spiritual wisdom and truth combined with prophecies fulfilled. Despite the diverse nature of writers, topics, geography, literary styles, and lengthy spans of time over which it was written there are significant commonalities in the core of the Bible despite the apparent inconsistencies in secondary and fringe details.

2. The Christian doesn't need an innerant Bible to base the core of his faith upon. There is enough historical evidence in the Bible (specifically the NT) to come to a rational conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross, rose from the dead and was seen by multiple people in multiple locations. And this would verify His claim to be the Son of God.

[Goat]

Just to clarify:

Written by God: means he actually wrote it, or put words, thoughts and feelings in a human's head and, word for word, it was written down, axactly as God wanted it. Means person was 'taken over' by God.

Inspired by God: He put the words, thoughts and feeling in a human's head and it was written down. Difference is that God did not literally take over human's body. It might not be word for word but it is what God wants written down. and there are no errors.

I agree that I think it is an extreme view to think that God in some way physically put pen to paper per se. My view might be considered on the conservative Christian side. I believe the Bible to be inspired by God but written and copied by humans. I think with some work and understanding we can get to inerrancy, but it's not necessary. I believe the Bible in its entirety to be the authority for Christianity. I think there are two keys one must consider regardless of whether you accept inerrancy or not.

1. There is good evidence to show the Bible is not simply a book of myths. There is a very good degree of accurate historicity in the Bible. There is also a high degree of spiritual wisdom and truth combined with prophecies fulfilled. Despite the diverse nature of writers, topics, geography, literary styles, and lengthy spans of time over which it was written there are significant commonalities in the core of the Bible despite the apparent inconsistencies in secondary and fringe details.

2. The Christian doesn't need an innerant Bible to base the core of his faith upon. There is enough historical evidence in the Bible (specifically the NT) to come to a rational conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross, rose from the dead and was seen by multiple people in multiple locations. And this would verify His claim to be the Son of God.

Now, claim number 2 is something I disagree with. I don't see any good historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth even existed as described in the Gospels.

Many and wonderous are the tails in the Gospels about Jesus. The basics fo that cliam of being physically raised from the dead comes from 4 gospels written after 70 c.e.

Let's see you find some objective, non-biblical evidence that Jesus even existed from before , oh , let's say the Jewish revolt.

[Easyrider]

Here is the summary paragraph.

The Bible is not the Perfect Revelation of God to humanity. Jesus is that perfect revelation. The Gospels are merely the record of Jesus' teachings, deposited with the communities and encoded for safe keeping in the list chosen through Apostolic backing to assure Christian identity. For that matter the Bible as a whole is a reflection of the experience of transformation and as such, since it was the product of human agents we can expect it to have human flaws. The extent to which those flaws are negligible can be judge the ability of that deposit of truth to adequately promote transformation. Christ authorizes the Apostles, the Apostles authorize the community, the community authorizes the tradition, and the tradition authorizes the canon.

To me, this sounds like a very good summary of the position held by traditionally liberal non-literalist Christianity.

That hasn't been my observation. Their Christ often isn't even God, but some imperfect philosopher. Many of them support gnostic "gospels" which distort the truth. They often embrace non-biblical lifestyles and deny the supernatural, including supernatural miracles and revelation. The Jesus Seminar is one such example.

[Goose]

Just to clarify:

Written by God: means he actually wrote it, or put words, thoughts and feelings in a human's head and, word for word, it was written down, axactly as God wanted it. Means person was 'taken over' by God.

Inspired by God: He put the words, thoughts and feeling in a human's head and it was written down. Difference is that God did not literally take over human's body. It might not be word for word but it is what God wants written down. and there are no errors.

I agree that I think it is an extreme view to think that God in some way physically put pen to paper per se. My view might be considered on the conservative Christian side. I believe the Bible to be inspired by God but written and copied by humans. I think with some work and understanding we can get to inerrancy, but it's not necessary. I believe the Bible in its entirety to be the authority for Christianity. I think there are two keys one must consider regardless of whether you accept inerrancy or not.

1. There is good evidence to show the Bible is not simply a book of myths. There is a very good degree of accurate historicity in the Bible. There is also a high degree of spiritual wisdom and truth combined with prophecies fulfilled. Despite the diverse nature of writers, topics, geography, literary styles, and lengthy spans of time over which it was written there are significant commonalities in the core of the Bible despite the apparent inconsistencies in secondary and fringe details.

2. The Christian doesn't need an innerant Bible to base the core of his faith upon. There is enough historical evidence in the Bible (specifically the NT) to come to a rational conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross, rose from the dead and was seen by multiple people in multiple locations. And this would verify His claim to be the Son of God.

Now, claim number 2 is something I disagree with. I don't see any good historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth even existed as described in the Gospels.

As I expected you would. That's your perspective based on your presuppostions. What constitues good evidence is subjective. I don't have a problem with you rejecting. That's your right to do so. As is my right to except the Gospels as they are written.

Many and wonderous are the tails in the Gospels about Jesus. The basics fo that cliam of being physically raised from the dead comes from 4 gospels written after 70 c.e.

This is your claim. I said nothing about dating. Why don't you back up your claim regarding dating with some intelligent reasoning and evidence. Then you can proceed to explain why books written at or near the date you suggest is not sufficient for me to base my faith upon. And then explain why the four Gospels are not suffienct for me to maintain my faith. I'd like evidence and reasoning, not your opinion.

Let's see you find some objective, non-biblical evidence that Jesus even existed from before , oh , let's say the Jewish revolt.

Let's see you prove to me this is necessary for me to believe that Jesus Christ existed, died and rose again. I realize you may need this to believe, but show me why I must have it to believe that Christ existed, died and rose.

[Goat]

Just to clarify:

Written by God: means he actually wrote it, or put words, thoughts and feelings in a human's head and, word for word, it was written down, axactly as God wanted it. Means person was 'taken over' by God.

Inspired by God: He put the words, thoughts and feeling in a human's head and it was written down. Difference is that God did not literally take over human's body. It might not be word for word but it is what God wants written down. and there are no errors.

I agree that I think it is an extreme view to think that God in some way physically put pen to paper per se. My view might be considered on the conservative Christian side. I believe the Bible to be inspired by God but written and copied by humans. I think with some work and understanding we can get to inerrancy, but it's not necessary. I believe the Bible in its entirety to be the authority for Christianity. I think there are two keys one must consider regardless of whether you accept inerrancy or not.

1. There is good evidence to show the Bible is not simply a book of myths. There is a very good degree of accurate historicity in the Bible. There is also a high degree of spiritual wisdom and truth combined with prophecies fulfilled. Despite the diverse nature of writers, topics, geography, literary styles, and lengthy spans of time over which it was written there are significant commonalities in the core of the Bible despite the apparent inconsistencies in secondary and fringe details.

2. The Christian doesn't need an innerant Bible to base the core of his faith upon. There is enough historical evidence in the Bible (specifically the NT) to come to a rational conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth died on the cross, rose from the dead and was seen by multiple people in multiple locations. And this would verify His claim to be the Son of God.

Now, claim number 2 is something I disagree with. I don't see any good historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth even existed as described in the Gospels.

As I expected you would. That's your perspective based on your presuppostions. What constitues good evidence is subjective. I don't have a problem with you rejecting. That's your right to do so. As is my right to except the Gospels as they are written.

Many and wonderous are the tails in the Gospels about Jesus. The basics fo that cliam of being physically raised from the dead comes from 4 gospels written after 70 c.e.

This is your claim. I said nothing about dating. Why don't you back up your claim regarding dating with some intelligent reasoning and evidence. Then you can proceed to explain why books written at or near the date you suggest is not sufficient for me to base my faith upon. And then explain why the four Gospels are not suffienct for me to maintain my faith. I'd like evidence and reasoning, not your opinion.

Let's see you find some objective, non-biblical evidence that Jesus even existed from before , oh , let's say the Jewish revolt.

Let's see you prove to me this is necessary for me to believe that Jesus Christ existed, died and rose again. I realize you may need this to believe, but show me why I must have it to believe that Christ existed, died and rose.

No, you didn't say anything about dating. You said historical evidence. For me to have valid historical evidence of this, I need primary sources from within 40 years lf the alleged incident.

If you can't provide it, then, you are incorrect in saying there is historical evidence showing it happened.