Board index ‹ Bible

[Coyote]

> Clement quotes the OT

So? Why are you pretending me saying “The Bible contains forgery and interpolation” is me saying it’s all forgery and interpolation. Have you already forgotten the argument?

> of course John 8 is forgery

And yet you still worship it. That’s the point.

> Not so (that 1 and 2 Peter are not accepted as forgeries). Origin, Cypian, etc, accepted it

That is a blatant lie. There’s no mention of 1 or 2 Peter at all. Considering the many lies of Christians that are accepted, I don’t need unanimous decisions or delusions to prove something is forged. You are just like your father Satan, full of deception and manipulation.
With that you deserve the hell you threaten others with. No murder will save you from your own delusion.

You are an idolator to a book compiled by man and organized by a hypocritical bloodthirsty government, you worship false things and you worship man made things. You worship lies.

[jimwalton]

> Why are you pretending me...

I was just giving the complete picture of 1 Clement. The point of the argument is to show that, contrary to your claim that "It didn’t exist until the 4th century," I was proving to you that the Bible existed in the 1st century.

> And yet you still worship it.

Christians don't worship the Bible. We are not "people of the book" like Muslims. We worship God who is Jesus. The book is an inspired record of God's revelation to us, but we certainly don't worship it. We call it "holy" because it is distinct from other books in that it is God-breathed.

> That is a blatant lie. There’s no mention of 1 or 2 Peter at all

Tertullian (around AD 200) quotes it as Petrine. Irenaeus (Against Heresies book 4 ch. 9.2) quotes 1 Pet. 1.8; quotes 1 Pet. 2.16 as “Peter says…”

Origen is quoted in Eusebius (6.25.8) as writing: "And Peter , on whom the Church of Christ is built, 'against which the gates of hell shall not prevail' (Matt. 16:18), has left one acknowledged Epistle; possibly also a second, but this is disputed."

[Zarco]

> and still has a consistency of theme and focus.

I don't agree with that at all. There are a lot of controversies and conflicts even within Christian sects about what conclusions to draw from scripture on many issues. Those who disagree with this statement usually say, "those other sects just interpret it wrong, our group is smarter and we pray harder" or something like that. To be frank, that strikes me as arrogance.

I in part do technical writing in my work, and if the Bible is an attempt at a precise rule and sin weighting guide, it outright flunks. Even many Christians believe it's not intended as a precise guide, but a kind of religious poetry to inspire.

Occam's razor: God is a lousy writer -OR- Bible is intended to be poetic. If God is an omnipotent being who cares about us, the second is the most logical, as an omnipotent being can just wink up top-quality clear writing if they so desire. (Or "hire" the very best writers.)

Do note I agree the Bible is influenced by actual historical events. But that by itself doesn't prove it's 100% accurate. (As somebody once stated: "The best BS is 90% truth and 10% twist.")

[jimwalton]

>> and still has a consistency of theme and focus.
> I don't agree with that at all.

The Bible, over its 66 books and roughly 1300 years of authorship (over 40 probable authors) shows a consistency of theme and a coherent message. On almost every page one can find teaching about understanding God properly, the importance of God's presence, God's desire to covenant with humans in relationship, sin as a breach of that covenant, redemption as the solution to the breach of sin, and resurrection as both the result and the goal. All of these themes coalesce in the person of Jesus: He is the relation to help us understand God properly; He is Immanuel, God with us; His blood is the new covenant; He came to save us from our sin; His redeeming blood is the mechanism of salvation and forgiveness, covenant and life; and His resurrection is the power that broke the power of death and makes our resurrection possible.

The Bible also has consistent elements of life and death, light and darkness, sin and wholeness.

> if the Bible is an attempt at a precise rule and sin weighting guide, it outright flunks.

The Bible is NOT a precise rule and weighting guide, never claims to be and never pretends to be. The Bible is God's revelation of Himself to us, including what is necessary for us to know to have a meaningful relationship with Him. It never claims to be or tries to be any kind of ethics manual or guide to moral behavior. What it does is reveal God to us and explains in a limited way what righteous behavior should derive from a relationship with God.

> a kind of religious poetry to inspire.

Well, this is most certainly not what it is.

> God is a lousy writer -OR- Bible is intended to be poetic

No, there is certainly a third choice here: The Bible is intended to inspired writing to reveal God to us. John Walton writes, "God has a plan in history that he is sovereignly executing. The goal of that plan is for him to be in relationship with the people whom he has created. It would be difficult for people to enter into a relationship with a God whom they do not know. If his nature were concealed, obscured, or distorted, an honest relationship would be impossible. In order to clear the way for this relationship, then, God has undertaken as a primary objective a program of self-revelation. He wants people to know him. The mechanism that drives this program is the covenant, and the instrument is Israel. The purpose of the covenant is to reveal God."

[Dove]

I’m interjecting here to all you this: Why do you suppose some believe the Bible is the Word of God when there’s nothing in scripture that says it is?

[jimwalton]

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of places in the Bible where it claims to be the Word of God.

• There are hundreds, if not thousands, of places where the text reads, "and God said," thus claiming to be what God said, viz., the "Word of God."
• There are dozens of places where God speaks to people through visions and dreams, thus claiming to be the message that God is communicating, viz., the "Word of God."
• 2 Peter 1.19-21 says that all of Scripture came from the Holy Spirit, and thus claiming to have its direct source in the Holy Spirit, viz., the "Word of God."
• 2 Timothy 3.16 says that all of Scripture is God-breathed, thus claiming to have it direct source in God, and is beneficial for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

[Dove]

The phrases “and God said” and “the Word of the LORD” exist in the Bible. We’re in agreement there. However, none of them are used, so far as I’ve seen, to refer to Scripture itself as a whole (or the Bible) as “The Word of God/God’s Word.”

Can you see that distinction?

[jimwalton]

You're right that "...and God said" (etc.) do not apply to the Scriptures as a whole. They only apply to that particular sentence/paragraph/prophecy for which they are used.

First, we should get some perspective. Large blocks of the Torah/Pentateuch fit this category, as do most of the books of the Major Prophets and the Minor Prophets. In addition, all the words of Jesus fit the category, as does Revelation. So I would say that approximately 1/4 of the Bible fits under "...and God said."

So what about the rest, you are asking. That's where 2 Pet. 1.19-21 and 2 Tim. 3.16 come in, which say that all of the Scriptures have their source in God/the Holy Spirit and are God-breathed. Some people may claim those texts pertain only to the Old Testament because the New Testament was just being written. To that I would say that the NT writers put their writings on par with the inspired Scriptures of the OT, claiming that their writings also have their source in God and are therefore God-breathed (2 Pet. 3.15-16; 1 Tim. 5.18 [referring to the Gospel of Luke]; Gal. 1.11-12; cf. also John 14.26).

Putting it all together, I have reason to assert that the entire Bible is God's Word.

[Dove]

I’ll take this bit by bit for clarity.

> They only apply to that particular sentence/paragraph/prophecy for which they are used.

Agreed.

> Large blocks of the Torah/Pentateuch fit this category, as do most of the books of the Major Prophets and the Minor Prophets.

Agreed.

> In addition, all the words of Jesus fit the category, as does Revelation.

Sure.

> So I would say that approximately 1/4 of the Bible fits under "...and God said."

I’m not good at estimates, but you may be right there.

> So what about the rest, you are asking.

No, actually, that’s not what I’m asking.

> Some people may claim those texts pertain only to the Old Testament because the New Testament was just being written.

I’m one of those people. When New Testament authors reference “Scripture,” they’re never referencing something that became our New Testament. They’re referencing the Hebrew Scripture, usually the Law or Prophets. Although the other day someone pointed to a place where they referred to “scripture” that didn’t make it into our canon at all. But that’s a whole other rabbit trail. And all of this is, actually, beside the point of my questions in the OP.

> Putting it all together, I have reason to assert that the entire Bible is God's Word.

That’s where we definitely disagree.

Even if I accept your whole premise here, all that leads to is that you believe the Bible is, in some way or another (sometimes directly, other times indirectly) the words or message of God.

But what I’m asking is…how do you get from that, to the idea that it’s right to refer to the Bible itself as “The Word of God” or “God’s Word”?

[jimwalton]

Hmm. I thought I did address that, but I'll try again.

2 Peter 1.19-21 and 2 Tim. 3.16 show us that the entire Old Testament is considered to have its source in God and is God-breathed. The OT is the message of God, or the words of God.

Other texts, as I have written to you over several posts, show us that the Gospel writers and the other writers of the NT consider their writings to have their source in God and on par (inspiration-speaking) with the OT writings, and therefore also the message of God, or the words of God.

Revelation 22.18-19 have led many Christian theologians and scholars, including myself, to have the perspective that the canon is now closed. The revelation of God to us through writings is complete. And therefore, the words or message from God become the package that we can regard as God's word to us. It is a collection of God's words and messages that together become a unified, collated, complete collection that can be regarded in the singular: This book is now what we consider to be God's Word to us.

Did that help? (I'm trying to get it clear for you.)