The Word of God or the Word of Man?

[anti-hillbilly]

In some previous threads, I have taken the position that much in the Bible reflects the large probability that it was written through human inspiration as opposed to divine inspiration. If one thinks about this, there are only two possibilities--either the Bible was divinely inspired or humanly inspired.

Please read the following verse and comment, if you are wont to, about whether it is rational for a person to believe--as I do--that this verse is the product of human imagination (i.e. human inspiration) as opposed to divine inspiration from an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent deity. (Please note the instruction to "kill").

Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 NAB

"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

Once again, is it rational for me to believe that this is not the work of a "four omni" God?

In my opinion that verse is the word of lustful, greedy men who needed to blame their misdeeds and perversion on God to try and justify it with the people. In other words, I think they did it but that they're lying when they say it was kosher with God that they did it.

Since I probably just put myself out on a limb by saying that I might as well go out a little further lol. I think it's wrong for people to try and rationalize "away" these barbaric murders and rapes (yes we know those women were raped). We don't know if the Cannanites did all those things, the victors get to write the history. Also I find it ironic that people say it's okay that the Cannanites were massacered in such a way because "they were making their children pass thru the fire" , a horrendous thing if it is true yet at the same time we're taught that if we don't make the final cut on judgement day we'll have to "pass thru the fires of hell" eternally but that's okay. -- I see a double standard here.

You ask some very head-scratching questions Sylvan3.

In my opinion, your views are heretical and they explain how come you believe what you do when it comes to politics. They also show I was correct in my assessment of liberals. You do not view the Bible as the innerant Word of God. I do. I believe every word from Genesis to Revelation is the Word of God and that God did order the destruction of the Canaanites.

You're very tyrannical. I think you enjoy these brutal verses that in my 'heretical' opinon insult the divine, loving nature of God. A lot of people these days seems to derive joy from a "serial rapist/killer" kind of tribal God; I'm not one of them.

[SoulGrind]

There are so many contradictions that I wouldn't even try to list them all. What apologists do is say, "There are no contradictions". They say it enough times that they hope people believe it--reading the whole Bible to determine if there are contradictions is not something many will do.

I find it truly amazing how often this question is asked (Isn't the Bible full of contradictions?). This question contains the assumption that the Bible is filled with many obvious discrepancies which, if true, would make it impossible to believe that the Bible has a divine origin. This is a popular idea to maintain that the Bible disagrees with itself, which casts considerable doubt on its trustworthiness.

If indeed the Bible does contain demonstrable errors, it would show that at least those parts could not have come from a perfect, all-knowing God. I do not argue with this conclusion, but I do disagree with the initial premise that the Scriptures are full of mistakes. It is very easy to accuse the Bible of inaccuracies, but it is quite another matter to prove it (and believe me, there have been far better people than us over the years who have tried to do so, and most have come to the conclusion that the Bible is trustworthy and accurate).

Certain passages at first glance appear to be contradictory (as you pointed out), but further ivestigationwill show that this is not the case.

One of the things for which we appeal with regard to possible contradictions is fairness. We should not minimize or exagerate the problem, and we must always begin by giving the author the benefit of the doubt. This is the rule in other literature, and we ask that it also be the rule here. We find so often that people want to employ a different set of rules when it comes to examining the Bible, and to this we immediately object.

So what constitutes a contradiction? The law of non-contradiction, which is the basis of all logical thinking, states that a thing cannot be both a and non-a at the same time. In other words, it cannot be both raining and not raining at the same time.

If one can demonstrate a violation of this principle from scripture, then and only then can that person prove a contradiction. For example, if the Bible said - WHICH IT DOES NOT - that Jesus died by crucifixion both at Jerusalem and at Nazareth at the same time, this would be a provable error.

When facing possible contradictions, it is of the highest importance to remember that two statements may differ from each other without being contradictory. Some fail to make a distinction between contradiction and difference.

For example, the case of the blind men at Jericho. Matthew relates how two blind men met Jesus, while both Mark and Luke mention only one. However neither of these statements denies the other, but rather they are complimentary.

Suppose you were talking to the mayor of your city and the chief of police at city hall. Later, you see your friend, Jim, and you tell him you talked to the mayor today. An hour later, you see your friend, John, and tell him you talked to both the mayor and the chief of police.

When your friends compare notes, there is a seeming contradiction. But there is no contradiction. If you had told Jim that you talked only to the mayor, your would have contradicted that statement by what you told John.

The statements you actually made to Jim and John are different, but not contradictory. Likewise, manyh biblical statements fall into this category. Many think they find errors in passages they have not correctly read.

In the Book of Judges we have an account of the death of Sisera. Judges 5:25-27 is supposed to represent Jael as having slain him with her hammer and tent peg while he was drinking milk. Judges 4:21 says she did it while he was asleep. However, a closer reading of Judges 5:25-27 will reveal that it is not stated that he was drinking milk at the moment of impact. Thus, the discrepancy disappears.

Sometimes two passages appear to be contradictory because the translation is not as accurate as it could be. A knowledge of the original languages of the Bible can immediately solve these difficulties, for both Greek and Hebrew - as all languages - have their peculiarities that make them difficult to render into English or any other language.

A classic example concerns the accounts of Paul's conversation as recorded in the Book of Acts. Acts 9:7 (KJV) states, "The men which journeyed with him stood speachless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." Acts 22:9 (KJV) reads, "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

The statements seem contradictory, with one saying that Paul's companions heard a voice, while the other account says that no voice was heard. However, a knowledge of Greek solves this difficulty. As the Greek scholar W.F. Arndt, explains:

"The construction of the verb 'to hear' (akouo) is not the same in both accounts. In Acts 9:7 it is used with the genetive, in Acts 22:9 with the accusative. The construction with the genetive simply expresses that something is being heard or that certain sounds reach the ear; nothing is indicated as to whether a person understands what he hears or not.

The construction with the accusative, however, describes a hearing which includes mental apprehension of the message spoken. From this it becomes evident that the two passages are not contradictory.

Acts 22:9 does not deny that the associates of Paul heard certain sounds; it simply declares that they did not hear in such a way as to understand what was being said. Our English idion is this case simply is not so expressive as the Greek." (Does the Bible Contradict Itself?, pp.13-14)

It must also be stressed that when a possible explanation is given to a Bible difficulty, it is unreasonable to state that the passage contains a demonstrable error. Some difficulties in Scripture result from our inadequate knowledge about the circumstances, and do not necessarily involve an error. These only prove that we are ignorant of the background.

As historical and archaeological study proceed, new light is being shed on difficult portions of Scriptutre and many "errors" have dissapeared with the new understanding. We need to a wait-and-see attitude on some problems.

While all Bible difficulties and discrepances have not yet been cleared up, it is our firm conviction that as more knowledge is gained of the Bible's past, these problems will fade away. The biblical conception of God is an all-knowing, all-powerful Being, who does not contradict Himself, and so we feel that His Word, when properly understood, will not contradict itself.

(Answers To Tough Questions, pp 29-33)

[sylvan3]

There are so many contradictions that I wouldn't even try to list them all. What apologists do is say, "There are no contradictions". They say it enough times that they hope people believe it--reading the whole Bible to determine if there are contradictions is not something many will do.

I find it truly amazing how often this question is asked (Isn't the Bible full of contradictions?). This question contains the assumption that the Bible is filled with many obvious discrepancies which, if true, would make it impossible to believe that the Bible has a divine origin. This is a popular idea to maintain that the Bible disagrees with itself, which casts considerable doubt on its trustworthiness.

If indeed the Bible does contain demonstrable errors, it would show that at least those parts could not have come from a perfect, all-knowing God. I do not argue with this conclusion, but I do disagree with the initial premise that the Scriptures are full of mistakes. It is very easy to accuse the Bible of inaccuracies, but it is quite another matter to prove it (and believe me, there have been far better people than us over the years who have tried to do so, and most have come to the conclusion that the Bible is trustworthy and accurate).

Certain passages at first glance appear to be contradictory (as you pointed out), but further ivestigationwill show that this is not the case.

One of the things for which we appeal with regard to possible contradictions is fairness. We should not minimize or exagerate the problem, and we must always begin by giving the author the benefit of the doubt. This is the rule in other literature, and we ask that it also be the rule here. We find so often that people want to employ a different set of rules when it comes to examining the Bible, and to this we immediately object.

So what constitutes a contradiction? The law of non-contradiction, which is the basis of all logical thinking, states that a thing cannot be both a and non-a at the same time. In other words, it cannot be both raining and not raining at the same time.

If one can demonstrate a violation of this principle from scripture, then and only then can that person prove a contradiction. For example, if the Bible said - WHICH IT DOES NOT - that Jesus died by crucifixion both at Jerusalem and at Nazareth at the same time, this would be a provable error.

When facing possible contradictions, it is of the highest importance to remember that two statements may differ from each other without being contradictory. Some fail to make a distinction between contradiction and difference.

For example, the case of the blind men at Jericho. Matthew relates how two blind men met Jesus, while both Mark and Luke mention only one. However neither of these statements denies the other, but rather they are complimentary.

Suppose you were talking to the mayor of your city and the chief of police at city hall. Later, you see your friend, Jim, and you tell him you talked to the mayor today. An hour later, you see your friend, John, and tell him you talked to both the mayor and the chief of police.

When your friends compare notes, there is a seeming contradiction. But there is no contradiction. If you had told Jim that you talked only to the mayor, your would have contradicted that statement by what you told John.

The statements you actually made to Jim and John are different, but not contradictory. Likewise, manyh biblical statements fall into this category. Many think they find errors in passages they have not correctly read.

In the Book of Judges we have an account of the death of Sisera. Judges 5:25-27 is supposed to represent Jael as having slain him with her hammer and tent peg while he was drinking milk. Judges 4:21 says she did it while he was asleep. However, a closer reading of Judges 5:25-27 will reveal that it is not stated that he was drinking milk at the moment of impact. Thus, the discrepancy disappears.

Sometimes two passages appear to be contradictory because the translation is not as accurate as it could be. A knowledge of the original languages of the Bible can immediately solve these difficulties, for both Greek and Hebrew - as all languages - have their peculiarities that make them difficult to render into English or any other language.

A classic example concerns the accounts of Paul's conversation as recorded in the Book of Acts. Acts 9:7 (KJV) states, "The men which journeyed with him stood speachless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." Acts 22:9 (KJV) reads, "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."

The statements seem contradictory, with one saying that Paul's companions heard a voice, while the other account says that no voice was heard. However, a knowledge of Greek solves this difficulty. As the Greek scholar W.F. Arndt, explains:

"The construction of the verb 'to hear' (akouo) is not the same in both accounts. In Acts 9:7 it is used with the genetive, in Acts 22:9 with the accusative. The construction with the genetive simply expresses that something is being heard or that certain sounds reach the ear; nothing is indicated as to whether a person understands what he hears or not.

The construction with the accusative, however, describes a hearing which includes mental apprehension of the message spoken. From this it becomes evident that the two passages are not contradictory.

Acts 22:9 does not deny that the associates of Paul heard certain sounds; it simply declares that they did not hear in such a way as to understand what was being said. Our English idion is this case simply is not so expressive as the Greek." (Does the Bible Contradict Itself?, pp.13-14)

It must also be stressed that when a possible explanation is given to a Bible difficulty, it is unreasonable to state that the passage contains a demonstrable error. Some difficulties in Scripture result from our inadequate knowledge about the circumstances, and do not necessarily involve an error. These only prove that we are ignorant of the background.

As historical and archaeological study proceed, new light is being shed on difficult portions of Scriptutre and many "errors" have dissapeared with the new understanding. We need to a wait-and-see attitude on some problems.

While all Bible difficulties and discrepances have not yet been cleared up, it is our firm conviction that as more knowledge is gained of the Bible's past, these problems will fade away. The biblical conception of God is an all-knowing, all-powerful Being, who does not contradict Himself, and so we feel that His Word, when properly understood, will not contradict itself.

(Answers To Tough Questions, pp 29-33)

The last paragraph acknowledges that contradictions exist in the Bible. The reason that they haven't "cleared" them up is because they haven't yet thought of rationalizations for them. The Bible doesn't change--the rationalizations do.

Don't forget, you are touting the Bible as "perfect", not almost perfect. Therefore, even if the Bible contained 99% consistency, which it clearly does not, it still would become fallible with one inconsistency no matter how trivial. Sorry--that's just the definition of fallibility.

[SoulGrind]

While all Bible difficulties and discrepances have not yet been cleared up, it is our firm conviction that as more knowledge is gained of the Bible's past, these problems will fade away. The biblical conception of God is an all-knowing, all-powerful Being, who does not contradict Himself, and so we feel that His Word, when properly understood, will not contradict itself.

(Answers To Tough Questions, pp 29-33)

The last paragraph acknowledges that contradictions exist in the Bible. The reason that they haven't "cleared" them up is because they haven't yet thought of rationalizations for them. The Bible doesn't change--the rationalizations do.

Don't forget, you are touting the Bible as "perfect", not almost perfect. Therefore, even if the Bible contained 99% consistency, which it clearly does not, it still would become fallible with one inconsistency no matter how trivial. Sorry--that's just the definition of fallibility.

[sylvan3]

While all Bible difficulties and discrepances have not yet been cleared up, it is our firm conviction that as more knowledge is gained of the Bible's past, these problems will fade away. The biblical conception of God is an all-knowing, all-powerful Being, who does not contradict Himself, and so we feel that His Word, when properly understood, will not contradict itself.

(Answers To Tough Questions, pp 29-33)

The last paragraph acknowledges that contradictions exist in the Bible. The reason that they haven't "cleared" them up is because they haven't yet thought of rationalizations for them. The Bible doesn't change--the rationalizations do.

Don't forget, you are touting the Bible as "perfect", not almost perfect. Therefore, even if the Bible contained 99% consistency, which it clearly does not, it still would become fallible with one inconsistency no matter how trivial. Sorry--that's just the definition of fallibility.

But who is clearing up these difficulties and discrepancies? Fallable man. So are we really dealling with discrepancies or just the limitations of the human mind?

One can make an honest attempt at arriving at the truth, but I will agree that the human mind has its limitations. I think that in the end, it all boils down to if a person truly thinks they are being honest with themself.

Edited July 13, 2006 by sylvan3

[sylvan3]

While all Bible difficulties and discrepances have not yet been cleared up, it is our firm conviction that as more knowledge is gained of the Bible's past, these problems will fade away. The biblical conception of God is an all-knowing, all-powerful Being, who does not contradict Himself, and so we feel that His Word, when properly understood, will not contradict itself.

(Answers To Tough Questions, pp 29-33)

The last paragraph acknowledges that contradictions exist in the Bible. The reason that they haven't "cleared" them up is because they haven't yet thought of rationalizations for them. The Bible doesn't change--the rationalizations do.

Don't forget, you are touting the Bible as "perfect", not almost perfect. Therefore, even if the Bible contained 99% consistency, which it clearly does not, it still would become fallible with one inconsistency no matter how trivial. Sorry--that's just the definition of fallibility.

But who is clearing up these difficulties and discrepancies? Fallable man. So are we really dealling with discrepancies or just the limitations of the human mind?

One can make an honest attempt at arriving at the truth, but I will agree that the human mind has its limitations. I think that in the end, it all boils down to if a person truly thinks they are being honest with themself.

[sylvan3]

In some previous threads, I have taken the position that much in the Bible reflects the large probability that it was written through human inspiration as opposed to divine inspiration. If one thinks about this, there are only two possibilities--either the Bible was divinely inspired or humanly inspired.

Please read the following verse and comment, if you are wont to, about whether it is rational for a person to believe--as I do--that this verse is the product of human imagination (i.e. human inspiration) as opposed to divine inspiration from an omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent deity. (Please note the instruction to "kill").

Deuteronomy 22: 28-29 NAB

"As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you."

Once again, is it rational for me to believe that this is not the work of a "four omni" God?

Why would you have problems believing that God commanded this?

Are you serious? Voices from God telling people to "kill"? Don't they put people in mental institutions for this? Didn't Andrea Yates say that God told her to kill her children? This is rational?

Explain to me why a perfect, omniscient, onmipotent, and omnipresent God needs to tell people to "kill".

Because God is the owner of all life. It is His to give and take away

Why wasn't God the one to take away the life? He was quite capable of doing the job himself. Why did he tell humans to do it? Like I said, hearing voices from God that tell someone to kill is not rational. In the case of Andrea Yates, I heard nary a word from anyone saying, "Wait a minute, maybe this woman was just doing what God told her to do".

All of this argues quite effectively for the evidence that humans--without divine inspiration--wrote the Bible.

Actually God is free to use whatever agency He chooses. Your comparrison of Andrea Yates to God's commands to Israel simply don't stand up. Israel was a theocracy with God as its leader. His commands were given to a nation who was at war. Andrea Yates was an individual. God has not given individuals the right to exact life. In fact, the Bible tells us just the opposite. As individuals we are not to take life.

So Andrea Yates claiming God told her to take a life does not stand up. It is anti-scriptural. Israel as a theocracy receiving marching orders for war stands up. There are no theocracies extant today. So we would expect no such further orders from God today. God works through the church. The church has been given no authority from God in the Bible to exact life. The church has one set of orders. It is the great commission stated in Matthew 28:19-20.

Nice try...

That is typically the response of a person who has no response

Please show me in the Bible where it says that God will not "talk" with humans via his "voice" in our present day. I know of no such verse and I will be happy to read it if you can provide it for me. I would like to know at what point he communicated, essentially, that "I will no longer talk to you like I did previously. If you think that you hear a voice from me, it is not me, immediately go seek mental help. Do not make the mistake in believing that what you read about in the Bible about me talking to people is still going to happen. Also, please remember that I only communicated with theocracies previously because I was your leader. It is important, once again, that individuals hearing my voice are aware--we don't want any mistakes here--that the voice that you hear from now on is not me. You have been informed. All communication from my voice will stop today at 12:00 PM."

It seems to me that the conclusion that "we would expect no such further orders from God today" is Christianity's way of acknowledging the lunacy of this type of communication with God.

One could only hope that George Bush is putting on an act when he says he believes the Bible. After all, what would happen if he thought he heard God's voice tell him to destroy a country and "show no mercy"?

Uh oh, maybe he DID hear a voice!!

[EricH]

Please show me in the Bible where it says that God will not "talk" with humans via his "voice" in our present day. I know of no such verse and I will be happy to read it if you can provide it for me. I would like to know at what point he communicated, essentially, that "I will no longer talk to you like I did previously. If you think that you hear a voice from me, it is not me, immediately go seek mental help. Do not make the mistake in believing that what you read about in the Bible about me talking to people is still going to happen. Also, please remember that I only communicated with theocracies previously because I was your leader. It is important, once again, that individuals hearing my voice are aware--we don't want any mistakes here--that the voice that you hear from now on is not me. You have been informed. All communication from my voice will stop today at 12:00 PM."

It seems to me that the conclusion that "we would expect no such further orders from God today" is Christianity's way of acknowledging the lunacy of this type of communication with God.

One could only hope that George Bush is putting on an act when he says he believes the Bible. After all, what would happen if he thought he heard God's voice tell him to destroy a country and "show no mercy"?

Uh oh, maybe he DID hear a voice!!

I never asserted that God cannot speak today in a human voice. What I said was that He will not contradict what He has revealed through Jesus in the written word. Jesus said individuals are not to kill. So, in the case of the individual you bring up, they claim to have heard from God, but are stating something contrary to that God has already revealed. They may very well be hearing a voice in this case, but it cannot be God's. There also is no working theocracy on earth. So we will not hear God ordering a government to war. According to the Bible, Israel was the only Theocracy

You need to read the posts more carefully as well as the texts you quote. I notice you tend to not get at the real meaning of the author quite frequently

[EricH]

Here is a passage that states very clearly where the final authority lies today and that God no longer speaks through prophets that can write inspred scriptures that add to the revelation regarding who God is and what He desired from us:

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Hebrews 1:1-3 NASB

Jesus is the final and full revleation of God and His will for our lives. Anyone claiming to hear from God, must be in line with the final revelation.

[sylvan3]

Please show me in the Bible where it says that God will not "talk" with humans via his "voice" in our present day. I know of no such verse and I will be happy to read it if you can provide it for me. I would like to know at what point he communicated, essentially, that "I will no longer talk to you like I did previously. If you think that you hear a voice from me, it is not me, immediately go seek mental help. Do not make the mistake in believing that what you read about in the Bible about me talking to people is still going to happen. Also, please remember that I only communicated with theocracies previously because I was your leader. It is important, once again, that individuals hearing my voice are aware--we don't want any mistakes here--that the voice that you hear from now on is not me. You have been informed. All communication from my voice will stop today at 12:00 PM."

It seems to me that the conclusion that "we would expect no such further orders from God today" is Christianity's way of acknowledging the lunacy of this type of communication with God.

One could only hope that George Bush is putting on an act when he says he believes the Bible. After all, what would happen if he thought he heard God's voice tell him to destroy a country and "show no mercy"?

Uh oh, maybe he DID hear a voice!!

I never asserted that God cannot speak today in a human voice. What I said was that He will not contradict what He has revealed through Jesus in the written word. Jesus said individuals are not to kill. So, in the case of the individual you bring up, they claim to have heard from God, but are stating something contrary to that God has already revealed. They may very well be hearing a voice in this case, but it cannot be God's. There also is no working theocracy on earth. So we will not hear God ordering a government to war. According to the Bible, Israel was the only Theocracy

You need to read the posts more carefully as well as the texts you quote. I notice you tend to not get at the real meaning of the author quite frequently

With all due respect, I don't think you corner the market on the "real meaning" of posts.

Let's consider what you have said about God being able to speak in a real voice today. Who determines when it is the "real voice" of God or some hallucination? This will come down to a fallible human being making that decision. You will say that it can't be "contrary to what God has revealed", but determining what God has revealed is a subjective decision. Hearing voices is not rational.

I don't see where Jesus's statement not to kill has relevance. Who listens to that? Leaders of nations? Somebody could easily find a justification to kill. The commandment "Thou Shall Not Kill" is about as vague as it gets. Jesus may have said not to kill, but was extremely limited in defining what that meant. Mankind has been forced to interpret that commandment. I appreciate the intent with the commandment, but it is useless because mankind interprets it the way he sees fit. The argument could easily be made that someone could hear a voice that they think is from God telling them to kill and believe that God is referring to a justifiable killing.

As for the theocracy argument, where does it say he will only reveal his voice to those leading a theocracy? I don't think scripture ties him into the conditions for when he will reveal his voice.