Many areas in history show us the authenticity of the Bible and its historical correctness. Hieroglyphics found in Egypt confirm the historical
account of the leaders and the enslavement of the Israelites. Many other historical documents from the ancient civilizations of the Middle East,
North Africa, and Europe prove the correctness of the Bibles historical accounts.
That being said, one could simply refute the Bible as a historical work written by man. This is a very important point, but one that is incorrect.
The Bible must be the work of God acting through man. The proof of this is in the details. While the Bible is factually correct as far as names of
leaders, political history and geographic history goes, there is no way that man without God;s guidance would have been able to write in such detail
as to tell the complete story. In hieroglyphics and other related historical documents we get only a basic synopsis that confirms the Bible accuracy,
however the Bible itself goes on to explain this history in great detail.
Additionally, details about even earlier history are related in the Bible that Man would have had no way of knowing without the guidance of God.
Modern archaeology finds, especially finds in and around the Fertile Crescent, only by the miracles of modern science reveal details of the Bible to
be correct, that the writers could not have known at the time the work was written. They also could not have made them up, because now we would be
able to scientifically debunk them, which modern science cannot (modern science has only proven the accuracy of the Bible time and time again)
Additionally one of the major parts of the Old Testament is that of prophecy. The prophets’ predictions were documented, and when they came true,
they were again documented. The prophets (many contributors to early texts of the Bible) could not have made the prophecies, nor would they have
documented them for reading by God’s children without His power and guidance.
As far as the New Testament goes, there is even less of a question as to whether it is the work of God through man. One of the major writers of this
volume, Paul, was a contemporary of Jesus. He was present for the miracles that make Christianity separate from most other major religions. He wrote
letters to cities and states throughout the region spreading the Gospel of Jesus, and God’s love and recommendations for guidance. These letters
would have never been written if not for God working through Paul. Certainly someone could have merely been an observer to these events and written a
broad account, but only a man that God was working through would have been present and directly involved in so many. Only a man who God was working
through could know the details of the events and be able to document them for future generations. Paul is only one example of God working through an
author to compile to Bible. As history has progressed He has had his hands working through many men to produce the work we revere as the Bible.
Without God, and Him working through man, there is no way that enough things would have ‘gone right’ to result in the Holy Book. There is no question
that yes indeed, The Bible IS the Work of God through Man.
Stumpy V Ktprktpr:The Bible., page
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
reply posted on 10-9-2003 @ 03:30 PM by ktprktpr
A House 'o Cards Made of Scripture
Well, I don't see much agreement here, beyond free will and revisionism.
The Bible is not just a book. The Bible is not just a "car", per your analogy. The Bible is a literary work that has existence in the human mind. As long as the content is exactly the same and legible, the Bible could be written in sticks and stones. It could be written in the sky, if the clouds would stick around long enough. The message is universal and can be in-scripted on anything. The message of the Bible rests on top of its' media. It is the message that is all meaningful. And this message is comprised of mental objects, like words, sentences and chapters.
This is where categorical confusion sets in: Unlike the physical world, in the mental sphere, the components of the Bible interconnect, intertwine, permeate and suffuse to generate a gestalt, the whole known as the Bible. If you change pieces of the message you change the whole (dare I say screw it up?). I can't stress this enough. There's no way around it. If the Bible came from God then we created an derivative, but alien, work the instant we started messing with it, through, and from, the hand (literally) of Mankind. How dare someone presuppose what God intended! In the mental sphere, pieces of the whole message are not interchangeable.
An analogy, for easier comprehension:
The Bible is like a giant House of Cards literally made of scripture. If I change all the "thous" to "you" the scripture isn't going to line up and the House will shift a little bit. Hopefully it's no biggie, but clearly that House isn't the same. Fast forward through some centuries and a whole lot of revision: The House is about sixteen stories shorter, a whole lot thinner and missing some tenants. Is this house the same as the original? Lord no! Man willfully changed the Bible, casting God out in the process (if he was ever there).
I'm going to put some words in Stumpy's mouth. Feel free to use the soap afterwards.
Stumpy:
A Posche, created by Buzi Porche, is still a Posche (with new spark plugs)
and the same as a Posche (with new spark plugs and tires).
The Bible is like a Posche <-- the physical world
(note direct relation to the physical world, not to the mental or even the spiritual)
My argument:
(notice how the meaning slips away, forever different. Shades of a former life are not to be taken as substitutes.)
Luke 6:48: "founded upon a rock" changes to "well built."(1) A change in the message. A change of the Bible.
Luke 21:8: "I am Christ" changes to "I am He, the One" (note lack of Christ).(1) A change in the message. A change of the Bible.
Romans 5:8: "commendeth" changes to "demonstrates , et al."(1) A change in the message. A change of the Bible.
The Bible has been changed by and, thereby, through Man. Specifically, ". . .ye have perverted the words of the living God. . ." Jeremiah 23:36(1)
This is the mental sphere, where changes to the parts changes the whole. This has happened many times, in the Bible. By creating a derivative work, via revisions, the Bible is born through and of Man. God Bless Us All.
---
(1): www.av1611.org...
Bible Version Comparison Chart
Well, I don't see much agreement here, beyond free will and revisionism.
The Bible is not just a book. The Bible is not just a "car", per your analogy. The Bible is a literary work that has existence in the human mind. As long as the content is exactly the same and legible, the Bible could be written in sticks and stones. It could be written in the sky, if the clouds would stick around long enough. The message is universal and can be in-scripted on anything. The message of the Bible rests on top of its' media. It is the message that is all meaningful. And this message is comprised of mental objects, like words, sentences and chapters.
This is where categorical confusion sets in: Unlike the physical world, in the mental sphere, the components of the Bible interconnect, intertwine, permeate and suffuse to generate a gestalt, the whole known as the Bible. If you change pieces of the message you change the whole (dare I say screw it up?). I can't stress this enough. There's no way around it. If the Bible came from God then we created an derivative, but alien, work the instant we started messing with it, through, and from, the hand (literally) of Mankind. How dare someone presuppose what God intended! In the mental sphere, pieces of the whole message are not interchangeable.
An analogy, for easier comprehension:
The Bible is like a giant House of Cards literally made of scripture. If I change all the "thous" to "you" the scripture isn't going to line up and the House will shift a little bit. Hopefully it's no biggie, but clearly that House isn't the same. Fast forward through some centuries and a whole lot of revision: The House is about sixteen stories shorter, a whole lot thinner and missing some tenants. Is this house the same as the original? Lord no! Man willfully changed the Bible, casting God out in the process (if he was ever there).
I'm going to put some words in Stumpy's mouth. Feel free to use the soap afterwards.
Stumpy:
A Posche, created by Buzi Porche, is still a Posche (with new spark plugs)
and the same as a Posche (with new spark plugs and tires).
The Bible is like a Posche <-- the physical world
(note direct relation to the physical world, not to the mental or even the spiritual)
My argument:
(notice how the meaning slips away, forever different. Shades of a former life are not to be taken as substitutes.)
Luke 6:48: "founded upon a rock" changes to "well built."(1) A change in the message. A change of the Bible.
Luke 21:8: "I am Christ" changes to "I am He, the One" (note lack of Christ).(1) A change in the message. A change of the Bible.
Romans 5:8: "commendeth" changes to "demonstrates , et al."(1) A change in the message. A change of the Bible.
The Bible has been changed by and, thereby, through Man. Specifically, ". . .ye have perverted the words of the living God. . ." Jeremiah 23:36(1)
This is the mental sphere, where changes to the parts changes the whole. This has happened many times, in the Bible. By creating a derivative work, via revisions, the Bible is born through and of Man. God Bless Us All.
---
(1): www.av1611.org...
Bible Version Comparison Chart
reply posted on 11-9-2003 @ 01:13 PM by ktprktpr
Remember, the Bible is a mental thing, not a category that can hold any number of things, or edits. Reflecting upon the ocean analogy, an ocean can
still be called an ocean if the fish are dying, oil slicks abound and the polar caps are melting. But the Bible can not be called the same thing if
it's so corrupted. It would be a different piece of work. Refer to my above post for why the Bible (or any work of literature, actually) is different
from a physical thing and how changes (esp. many of them) really do affect the whole. Then reflect upon the first paragraph in my opening statement,
on how humans filter everything. Hopefully, it's clear how two dynamic sources can easily result in something not given by God.
A change in the Bible, if from God via communion, is a warranted change, I concede that. However, what I do not concede is the premise that every change in the Bible was delivered from God. Free will puts the possibility to very low chances. The number of authors puts the possibility to very low chances. The number centuries the Bible has been edited puts the possibility to very low chances. So I give it very very and very low chances of being a product of God's guidance. But, hey, we're debating about the Bible here and that implicitly involves faith, so I should also show that Biblical revisions left God out.
I'll say it straight: God gives sometimes when you don't ask and sometimes when you do ask. It's a matter of faith whether it happened or not. Stumpy and I can not logically prove that something was or was not divinely inspired.
But if the entire Bible was faithfully written, then why, in revision, do the following discrepancies exist? (Please remember that God did not create Everything, as we agree. Maybe everything, but we're still actors on that stage.)
1. Criteria for gender revisionism:
A set of norms for gender revisionism that says nothing of specifically asking God for advice. It reads almost like a secular translation key. See these Norms for Revision, by Cardinal Joesphy Ratzinger.(1) Asking God for advice is pretty important if the whole Bible is to be by God. I doubt something so important would be left to chance, or worse, left out.
2. Furthermore:
Why is there a conflict between the Liturgiam authenticam, the authentic Liturgy from the Vactican, no less, and the Neo-Vulgate, from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.(2) These are documents coming from two heavy weight institutions who pray to God all the time. If both are faithful than why is this happening?
3. Lastly:
Apocrypha writings, often not included in Protestant Bibles, were included in the original King James Bible. But they exist in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox editions. These writings are also known as "deuterocanonical" books and "pseudoepigrapha". Apocrypha refers to writings entirely outside of the bible and are not considered to be inspired (like the Gospel of Thomas, etc.). Why are they in some Bibles but not others? Something, or someone, got left out.
In all three cases there is an explicit lack of faith (or asking) and zeal to change the Bible. One can only imagine how frequently "errors", meaning changes not given by God, can occur over many centuries.
Now I'll address a more secular point about changing not destroying. Changing does destroy, especially when it adds up. In a small part, Stumpy has already agreed with me; let me clearly point out: " ... physical form of the Bible does not matter... It could be written in sticks and stones.", yet, "changing a 'thou' to a 'you' is [a] minor change.." (italics mine) Obviously, in the mental sphere, changing the content is exactly that, a change. These changes add up and result in a different piece of work. From reviewing the above three examples we should note that revisionism has not referred to God in all cases, that the Bible has been revised many times and Biblical institutions, who pray a lot, do not agree with other, as brothers and sisters should. With any confusion of responsibility, biblical edits should rest solely with Man, and the number and duration of edits therefore result in a Bible by Man and through Man. Whew!
----
(1) Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, The National Catholic Reporter: www.cin.org...
(2) Adoremus, Vol. VII, No. 6: September 2001, online edition (www.adoremus.org...)
A change in the Bible, if from God via communion, is a warranted change, I concede that. However, what I do not concede is the premise that every change in the Bible was delivered from God. Free will puts the possibility to very low chances. The number of authors puts the possibility to very low chances. The number centuries the Bible has been edited puts the possibility to very low chances. So I give it very very and very low chances of being a product of God's guidance. But, hey, we're debating about the Bible here and that implicitly involves faith, so I should also show that Biblical revisions left God out.
I'll say it straight: God gives sometimes when you don't ask and sometimes when you do ask. It's a matter of faith whether it happened or not. Stumpy and I can not logically prove that something was or was not divinely inspired.
But if the entire Bible was faithfully written, then why, in revision, do the following discrepancies exist? (Please remember that God did not create Everything, as we agree. Maybe everything, but we're still actors on that stage.)
1. Criteria for gender revisionism:
A set of norms for gender revisionism that says nothing of specifically asking God for advice. It reads almost like a secular translation key. See these Norms for Revision, by Cardinal Joesphy Ratzinger.(1) Asking God for advice is pretty important if the whole Bible is to be by God. I doubt something so important would be left to chance, or worse, left out.
2. Furthermore:
Why is there a conflict between the Liturgiam authenticam, the authentic Liturgy from the Vactican, no less, and the Neo-Vulgate, from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.(2) These are documents coming from two heavy weight institutions who pray to God all the time. If both are faithful than why is this happening?
3. Lastly:
Apocrypha writings, often not included in Protestant Bibles, were included in the original King James Bible. But they exist in the Roman Catholic and Orthodox editions. These writings are also known as "deuterocanonical" books and "pseudoepigrapha". Apocrypha refers to writings entirely outside of the bible and are not considered to be inspired (like the Gospel of Thomas, etc.). Why are they in some Bibles but not others? Something, or someone, got left out.
In all three cases there is an explicit lack of faith (or asking) and zeal to change the Bible. One can only imagine how frequently "errors", meaning changes not given by God, can occur over many centuries.
Now I'll address a more secular point about changing not destroying. Changing does destroy, especially when it adds up. In a small part, Stumpy has already agreed with me; let me clearly point out: " ... physical form of the Bible does not matter... It could be written in sticks and stones.", yet, "changing a 'thou' to a 'you' is [a] minor change.." (italics mine) Obviously, in the mental sphere, changing the content is exactly that, a change. These changes add up and result in a different piece of work. From reviewing the above three examples we should note that revisionism has not referred to God in all cases, that the Bible has been revised many times and Biblical institutions, who pray a lot, do not agree with other, as brothers and sisters should. With any confusion of responsibility, biblical edits should rest solely with Man, and the number and duration of edits therefore result in a Bible by Man and through Man. Whew!
----
(1) Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, The National Catholic Reporter: www.cin.org...
(2) Adoremus, Vol. VII, No. 6: September 2001, online edition (www.adoremus.org...)
Pages: ^^TOP^^
