Bible

[LearningToLetGo]

20 minutes ago, Who me said:

If one cannot prove one assertion, it follows that the opposite is true.

I respectfully disagree. If one cannot prove one assertion then one cannot prove one assertion.

For example, a prosecutor cannot prove a crime. We assume innocence but that does not prove innocence.

In the same manner if we cannot prove the Bible is the word of God that does not mean it isn't and vice versa. It comes down to faith, as always.

[Hawkins]

On 1/23/2021 at 2:54 PM, LearningToLetGo said:

How do we know the scripture in the Bible is truly the word of God? It seems we have a sort of circular logic in that the Catholic church declared the Bible as canon and the Bible declared the Church as the definitive legacy of Jesus. What am I missing here?

It boils down to in reality whether God exists. If God truly exists He is in control. The Bible becomes the only mean for God's info to be conveyed to humans in the form of human testimonies. The content is thus all true such that those humans not fulfilling the requirement set forth by the said New Covenant will be judged in accordance to what is said. In a nutshell, the Bible is more of a court document. The Church on the other hand is the legal entity to guard its legitimacy.

If in reality God doesn't exist then how accurate the Bible is no longer matters.

 

What humans cannot be sure is whether God exists in reality or not. That exactly ties to the faith needed by the said covenant. It's nothing circular. If it's circular it means you can provide a better "solution" or answer. The situation here however is that you can't possibly provide a better solution.

Edited February 23, 2021 by Hawkins

[missmuffet]

4 hours ago, Hawkins said:

It boils down to in reality whether God exists. If God truly exists He is in control. The Bible becomes the only mean for God's info to be conveyed to humans in the form of human testimonies. The content is thus all true such that those humans not fulfilling the requirement set forth by the said New Covenant will be judged in accordance to what is said. In a nutshell, the Bible is more of a court document. The Church on the other hand is the legal entity to guard its legitimacy.

If in reality God doesn't exist then how accurate the Bible is no longer matters.

 

What humans cannot be sure is whether God exists in reality or not. That exactly ties to the faith needed by the said covenant. It's nothing circular. If it's circular it means you can provide a better "solution" or answer. The situation here however is that you can't possibly provide a better solution.

Are you agnostic?

[Paul James]

7 hours ago, Hawkins said:

It boils down to in reality whether God exists. If God truly exists He is in control. The Bible becomes the only mean for God's info to be conveyed to humans in the form of human testimonies. The content is thus all true such that those humans not fulfilling the requirement set forth by the said New Covenant will be judged in accordance to what is said. In a nutshell, the Bible is more of a court document. The Church on the other hand is the legal entity to guard its legitimacy.

If in reality God doesn't exist then how accurate the Bible is no longer matters.

 

What humans cannot be sure is whether God exists in reality or not. That exactly ties to the faith needed by the said covenant. It's nothing circular. If it's circular it means you can provide a better "solution" or answer. The situation here however is that you can't possibly provide a better solution.

The Scripture says that he who comes to God must believe that He is [in other words, that He is really there] and that He is a rewarder of those who genuinely seek Him.

Therefore, if you are not sure whether God exists or not, you cannot come to Him, therefore you cannot be saved and are still on the road to hell.  That is the reality.

I know that God is really there, because He made Himself real to me, and I have fellowship with Him and His Son Jesus Christ every day.  Every genuinely converted believer will tell you the same.   Anyone who doesn't have personal fellowship with the Father and the Son has just the Christian religion, and it doesn't matter how religious the person is, they are still in their sins and hell-bound.   The Scripture promises that those who seek God with all their hearts will find Him.  Therefore, sitting in the church pew on Sunday morning wondering if God exists won't get you to heaven. 

[LearningToLetGo]

30 minutes ago, Paul James said:

Therefore, if you are not sure whether God exists or not, you cannot come to Him, therefore you cannot be saved and are still on the road to hell.  That is the reality.

It's interesting you say that. Some ideas/religions/philosophies I hear and they "click" - it just makes sense - and others I struggle with. Times like these I think of the prodigal son.

[Tristen]

Hi LTLG,

You asked, “How do we know the scripture in the Bible is truly the word of God?”

The term “know” is absolutist. We can only claim that level of confidence by faith. But that faith can be rationally justified (i.e. as opposed to blind faith).

There are several ways to test the reliability of scripture. For example;

- Manuscript comparison: We have many thousands of ancient Bible manuscripts available to us – some dated to within decades of original authorship (unheard of for any other ancient literary source) – enabling us to trace the message (including any attempts to change it). This attests to the idea that God Himself has preserved the message over time.

- Fulfilled prophecy: The Bible presents many prophetic predictions. Some of these are very specific. Many of these have been fulfilled exactly. Whilst it could be legitimately claimed that some remain unfulfilled, it can not be legitimately claimed that any are unequivocally wrong.

- Logical self-consistency: 1) More than 65 human authors spanning thousands of years and disparate cultures; all presenting a consistent revelation of God and reality. 2) Though many contradictions are alleged, I have yet to encounter one that could not be logically reconciled (which is all that is required to fail the allegation of contradiction). 3) Sources of scripture recognise other sources of scripture as scripture. 4) Scripture attests to its own inspiration – which is somewhat circular, yet would be a serious problem for logical self-consistency if it claimed otherwise.

- The Scientific Method: Though not the Bible's primary goal, the Bible makes many claims about the natural world which can be tested against the discoveries of operational science.

- Historical modelling. The Bible makes many specific historical claims (i.e. both popular and obscure claims - pertaining to people, places, geography, food, clothing and other cultural practices) that can be tested against archaeological evidence.

- Testimonial evidence: Many credible people over history have attested to their personal fellowship with the God of the Bible, as well as those who have applied the Bible to their lives and testify that what it teaches works.

By every reasonable, rational standard, the Bible has demonstrated itself to be uncannily reliable. It is therefore perfectly reasonable, and rational, to consider the Bible reliable in those areas where it can not be directly tested.

 

“It seems we have a sort of circular logic in that the Catholic church declared the Bible as canon and the Bible declared the Church as the definitive legacy of Jesus. What am I missing here?”

I think the wording of this statement lends itself to historical miss-characterisation.

Firstly, the early Christian church was a persecuted and fragmented minority in the Roman empire. Then an attempt was made to unify the church. The church at the time was not the 'Roman Catholic' denomination we think of today. It was simply the newly unified (or universal – a.k.a. 'Catholic') Christian church of the time – which later developed into 'Roman Catholic' and 'Eastern Orthodox' denominations.

Secondly, “declared” is a tricky word. Councils at the time merely formally recognised the texts that were already, universally considered to be scriptures by all primary Christian factions at the time. The councils agreed on a rigid set of rules (or 'cannon') by which scripture could be qualified. Remember that Christianity at the time was comprised of devout people accustomed to being martyred for their faith. Such a person would not be obligated to the definition of scripture made by an 'other' group. That is, the cannon of scripture would likely not have stuck if it was not already accepted scripture.

 

[Dennis1209]

4 hours ago, Tristen said:

Hi LTLG,

You asked, “How do we know the scripture in the Bible is truly the word of God?”

The term “know” is absolutist. We can only claim that level of confidence by faith. But that faith can be rationally justified (i.e. as opposed to blind faith).

There are several ways to test the reliability of scripture. For example;

- Manuscript comparison: We have many thousands of ancient Bible manuscripts available to us – some dated to within decades of original authorship (unheard of for any other ancient literary source) – enabling us to trace the message (including any attempts to change it). This attests to the idea that God Himself has preserved the message over time.

- Fulfilled prophecy: The Bible presents many prophetic predictions. Some of these are very specific. Many of these have been fulfilled exactly. Whilst it could be legitimately claimed that some remain unfulfilled, it can not be legitimately claimed that any are unequivocally wrong.

- Logical self-consistency: 1) More than 65 human authors spanning thousands of years and disparate cultures; all presenting a consistent revelation of God and reality. 2) Though many contradictions are alleged, I have yet to encounter one that could not be logically reconciled (which is all that is required to fail the allegation of contradiction). 3) Sources of scripture recognise other sources of scripture as scripture. 4) Scripture attests to its own inspiration – which is somewhat circular, yet would be a serious problem for logical self-consistency if it claimed otherwise.

- The Scientific Method: Though not the Bible's primary goal, the Bible makes many claims about the natural world which can be tested against the discoveries of operational science.

- Historical modelling. The Bible makes many specific historical claims (i.e. both popular and obscure claims - pertaining to people, places, geography, food, clothing and other cultural practices) that can be tested against archaeological evidence.

- Testimonial evidence: Many credible people over history have attested to their personal fellowship with the God of the Bible, as well as those who have applied the Bible to their lives and testify that what it teaches works.

By every reasonable, rational standard, the Bible has demonstrated itself to be uncannily reliable. It is therefore perfectly reasonable, and rational, to consider the Bible reliable in those areas where it can not be directly tested.

 

“It seems we have a sort of circular logic in that the Catholic church declared the Bible as canon and the Bible declared the Church as the definitive legacy of Jesus. What am I missing here?”

I think the wording of this statement lends itself to historical miss-characterisation.

Firstly, the early Christian church was a persecuted and fragmented minority in the Roman empire. Then an attempt was made to unify the church. The church at the time was not the 'Roman Catholic' denomination we think of today. It was simply the newly unified (or universal – a.k.a. 'Catholic') Christian church of the time – which later developed into 'Roman Catholic' and 'Eastern Orthodox' denominations.

Secondly, “declared” is a tricky word. Councils at the time merely formally recognised the texts that were already, universally considered to be scriptures by all primary Christian factions at the time. The councils agreed on a rigid set of rules (or 'cannon') by which scripture could be qualified. Remember that Christianity at the time was comprised of devout people accustomed to being martyred for their faith. Such a person would not be obligated to the definition of scripture made by an 'other' group. That is, the cannon of scripture would likely not have stuck if it was not already accepted scripture.

 

Well said and I totally agree with you Tristen, you know your Bible and history. Your above response leads me to a question I'd like to ask, and get your thoughts pertaining to God's preservation of His word. I'm keeping this super brief...

No need to discuss the the Masoretic, Manuscripts, Textus Receptus, Majority-Minority texts, etc. Just the myriad of versions-translations since the 19th century. 

Prior to the 19th century, there was only a had full of Bible versions and translations. Now there's a little less than two hundred. We know many of these versions omit verses, change words, sentences and even change and omit paragraphs. 

The overwhelming number of versions are copyrighted and restricted. A handful yet remain uncopyrighted [Septuagint, KJV, Geneva, Old Syriac, Pilgrim's, Latin Vulgate, etc.]. To obtain a copyright license, the work must be at least 15% different from the original source(s). 15% + 15% + 15% = xxx%. The question arises then, where did God preserve His word for all of eternity. He gave us His word in written form, inspired by the Holy Spirit. 

With the finding, study and compilations of the Dead Sea Scroll's, they seem to support the few early, rather than the many later. Your thoughts?

[Tristen]

12 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Well said and I totally agree with you Tristen, you know your Bible and history. Your above response leads me to a question I'd like to ask, and get your thoughts pertaining to God's preservation of His word. I'm keeping this super brief...

No need to discuss the the Masoretic, Manuscripts, Textus Receptus, Majority-Minority texts, etc. Just the myriad of versions-translations since the 19th century. 

Prior to the 19th century, there was only a had full of Bible versions and translations. Now there's a little less than two hundred. We know many of these versions omit verses, change words, sentences and even change and omit paragraphs. 

The overwhelming number of versions are copyrighted and restricted. A handful yet remain uncopyrighted [Septuagint, KJV, Geneva, Old Syriac, Pilgrim's, Latin Vulgate, etc.]. To obtain a copyright license, the work must be at least 15% different from the original source(s). 15% + 15% + 15% = xxx%. The question arises then, where did God preserve His word for all of eternity. He gave us His word in written form, inspired by the Holy Spirit. 

With the finding, study and compilations of the Dead Sea Scroll's, they seem to support the few early, rather than the many later. Your thoughts?

Hi Dennis, I also tried (with limited success) to be “brief”.

I'm not sure I exactly understand the question.

Technically, Christian doctrine only teaches that the autographic texts (i.e. the originals) are inerrant. There are several degrees of separation between our modern translations and the autographic texts (i.e. Translation <<<< generations of hand-written copies <<<< now lost originals). No one who understands this considers modern translations to be inerrant, though we do believe that God has preserved all that is necessary for essential doctrine. And the manuscript evidence suggests that the original message has been delivered to us largely unaltered. Translations do not alter the manuscript evidence.

Word changes in translations are a bit tricky, since there are many types of translations – including paraphrase versions that wholeheartedly, intentionally rewrite the Bible (in an attempt to make it more readable). It's rare that a sentence can be word-for-word translated into a different language – i.e. with the same grammatical structure, and whilst preserving all the ideas inherent to the original. So it is unsurprising (and inevitable) that translators will sometimes use different words in their efforts to convey the same passages.

You seem to be aware that there are 'families' of manuscripts. Most of the deletions/additions (depending on your preferred perspective) occur between these families. Overall, these are not doctrinally significant. For those who think parts have been omitted in the other texts, certain doctrines are mildly watered-down. For those who think parts have been added in other texts, certain doctrines are slightly over-emphasised. But the doctrines still exist in all texts regardless.

Obviously, we do not want to make light of any potential error. I personally trust one text family more than others. But there are valid arguments to trust the others as well. And there's no objective way to verify which is more correct. And to make matters even more complicated, some 'Revised' translations add information from multiple text families. But again, they are really not so different in terms of overall content.

Fortunately, every Christian also has the Holy Spirit to guide us into truth.

 

“To obtain a copyright license, the work must be at least 15% different from the original source(s)”

I'm not familiar with copyright laws, but it seems a lot would ride on what is meant by “different”. I would think a change of language makes the text almost entirely “different”. Or the addition of study materials (concordances, maps, footnotes, background information, cross-references etc.)

 

“With the finding, study and compilations of the Dead Sea Scroll's, they seem to support the few early, rather than the many later. Your thoughts?”

To my knowledge, the differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls and later manuscripts are very minor; mostly punctuation and spelling. But the intended meaning of the scriptures are remarkably, uncannily preserved across all that time. In a few cases, words were substituted where the words themselves had changed meaning over time.

As an analogy, some of us (i.e. those of a certain vintage) might remember the line “We'll have a gay ol' time” from the Flintstones theme song, or “Don we now our gay apparel” from the 'Deck the Halls' Christmas carol. Millennials might understand these lines differently to their original, intended meaning . So maintaining the use of these words today, as though they still meant what they used to mean, would actually be miss-representative of the authors intent.

 

[enoob57]

On 2/23/2021 at 8:38 AM, Hawkins said:

It boils down to in reality whether God exists. If God truly exists He is in control.

This question then: How can something which has began or came into existence be given proof from a source that never began or has infinitely existed?

On 2/23/2021 at 8:38 AM, Hawkins said:

The Bible becomes the only mean for God's info to be conveyed to humans in the form of human testimonies.

God is not dependent upon His creation but His creation is dependent upon Him...

On 2/23/2021 at 8:38 AM, Hawkins said:

What humans cannot be sure is whether God exists in reality or not

God says by the very fact you are in His creation and can examine that which is here... you are held accountable to know that He 'IS'...
 

Rom 1:18-23

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
KJV
 

On 2/23/2021 at 8:38 AM, Hawkins said:

The situation here however is that you can't possibly provide a better solution.

If you examine God's Word superficially then you have what you have stated ... but if you really search to see whether it is of God or not- you will have the faith to know that which is beyond your senses actually exist by the faith generated by said Word... the reason God's Word is not circular is the fact it is a path to the eternity and is not dependent upon what is here which is passing away; entropy's witness...

[Leonardo Von]

On 1/23/2021 at 4:54 PM, LearningToLetGo said:

How do we know the scripture in the Bible is truly the word of God?

There are many proofs that the Holy Scripture is inspired by the Creator. One of them is that it is impossible to find someone who is able to be prosperous encroaching its teachings.

Obs.: when I say prosperous, I am referring to someone who is really full of joy, peace, love, mercy.