Stumpy V Ktprktpr:The Bible.

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2003 @ 06:29 AM
link   
The Debate to become the official Challenger to cross swords with our champion OIMD.

The Debate will start next Sunday Sept 7th.
That is when this topic will be unlocked.

In the red corner,Stumpy ,but never stumped,after a bruising contest against Skadi-the-evil-Elf.

In the blue corner Ktprktpr,after his battle with the Bottle.Drunk that is.

Each debator will have one opening statement each.This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each.There will be one closing statement each and no rebutal.

The Debate topic is:The Bible is the work of God through man.

Stumpy will argue for this proposition and he will open the Debate.
Ktprktpr will respond and argue against this proposition.

As a guide responses should be made within 18 hours.However if the debate is moving forward then I have a relaxed attitude to this.

Other rules can be found on a Topic on this forum.

I wish you both goodluck




posted on Sep, 7 2003 @ 07:31 PM
link   
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 Many other historical documents from the ancient civilizations of the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe prove the correctness of the Bibles historical accounts.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 In hieroglyphics and other related historical documents we get only a basic synopsis that confirms the Bible accuracy, however the Bible itself goes on to explain this history in great detail.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 Gods 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 Gods 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.



posted on Sep, 8 2003 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Humans filter everything they see, feel, hear, touch and taste. Irrespective of the source, aging stories grow, change and mutate. Did you know that "Yahweh" is a mispronounced version of Jehovah?

God may have very well divinely inspired man to write the original Bible. However, the phrase, "The Bible", refers to the modern one. It's silly to talk of the original Bible when no one has it. (I checked, in my closet) The ancient field of Biblical Scholarship reveals that this modern Bible is a product of centuries of revisionism and censorship. "There are two different stories of the creation of the world. Two stories of the covenant between God and the patriarch Abraham, on the naming of Abraham's son Isaac and so forth. In most cases one of the two stories consistently refers to God as Yahweh (mispronounced version of Jehovah) while the other consistently refers to God." 1

There's another slant to this debate: Perhaps God worked by non-direct means to produce the current Bible? But this can not be so, because Man was given free-will the day Adam and Eve partook of the apple. So God would never possess His Creation, as Satan does. He may nudge him, though. But who's doing the writing if Man decided to pick up that pen?

What does it mean that the Bible is fraught with inconsistencies and censorship? And that Man wrote it? It means that the original Bible has become new and terrestial through Man.


----

Footnote, 1 : Who Wrote the Bible? by Richard Eilliott Friedman, Summit Books, NY, ny pp 22



posted on Sep, 8 2003 @ 10:18 PM
link   
You bring up some interesting points ktprktpr. The Bible while indeed the work of God has been the victim of some tragic malignments but is none-the-less still the work of God.

First, lets focus on the modern Bible instead of the original texts. Two issues come to mind. One, that while there are some inconsistencies, there are far more Consistencies, showing that the bulk of the remianing Bible remains the work of God through man. Furthermore, new, more accurate translations are coming out based more directly on the original (or at least much older) texts and skipping the most error frought version, the King James Bible. However, due to the many many consistencies, even the King James version remains fundamentally the work of God.

Now to address the Free Will issue. It is an excellent issue to explore, and actually proves even further that the Bible is indeed the work of God through man. Since Man was given free will, one thing that he can ask for from God is to have God work through him to accomplish Gods Goals... "Oh Lord please use me as a vessel to convey your work to the masses, to spread the Gospel to non-beleivers and to further Your message throughout the earth" This might be how one would pray to have God work through him, and how God could then work directly though someone with free will.

As far as the errors and inconsistency goes, the Bible is no different than any of God's other wondrous works. God created trees...but some still get Dutch Elm Disease. Because these are flawed does it mean that trees are the creation of Man? Of course not, even with its flaws, the tree is still a creation of God. The same is true of the Bible, even with some errors, and missed translations (man is, after all, flawed). These flaws simply further show that the Bible is Gods work, it is just his work through Man.



posted on Sep, 9 2003 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I did bring up some interesting points, didn't I? So did you:

In your first paragraph it's argued that consistencies in the Bible are evidence of Gods' hand. ("... the remaining Bible remains the work of God...). But by the third paragraph it's said that these flaws (think: inconsistencies) "...further show that the Bible is Gods' work." Interesting points indeed, which argument is it?


Let me discuss consistency and a lack of it, in a different arena:

Consistency and the lack of it make up the Bible: that is, the Bible is a whole thing, made up of its parts. (You can't read half of the Bible and claim to have read the (whole) Bible.) And like any piece of literature, the Bible is a mental work constructed from physical components. Ink forms the words that accumulate into a whole mental work called The Bible. This may seem like an obscure point, but it should be clear that the Bible, so to speak, is a forest, not a collection of trees. So what does it mean that the Bible is a whole, not a part?

It means that the Bible can only be a work of God if Man were possessed by God to write it perfectly and no further edits were made. In my opening I allow such a thing, but, even as Stumpy agrees, the Bible since then has been "victim of tragic malignments." The whole of the Bible has been irrevocably changed by its revised parts. And it's silly to talk of degrees, as Gods' intent is intact or it isn't, hence the Bible is either "pure" or not.

Free will introduces another variability to this process. Through free will, communion with God is even "harder" to achieve. Believe me, I have prayed to the Lord to work through me, Amen!, for deliverance unto me, of a single winning U.S. lottery ticket. I've yet to see results.

Clearly, asking and receiving are two different cases. So, now there is a probabilistic element to creating the Bible. Has every Biblical author, at every time of Biblical scripting, been given direct communion? I doubt it and the chances are slim. Not every contributing author/editor of the Bible was a saint, like St. Paul or St. Moses. Also take note that the Koran, of Islam, was dictated by God (it is so recorded) but Biblical authorship isn't even brought up in the Bible.


Well, that leaves me up against one last argument: "Hey wait! God created Everything!" Well, this argument can't be used because Stumpy and I agree that we have free will. Free will and absolutism by God can't co-exist. A lesser form of the above argument can be adapted: What if God merely created everything and initially set things in motion. Well, that's like saying God set the stage and we're doing the acting on it. Similarly, from that acting, the editing and translation of experience, the Bible was written through Man. Now, there's no problem with saints and the like observing Jesus and relating stories, but in translating experience, writing them down and later editing them Man writes the Bible through himself. Remember, God allows us to have free will, so we willfully create the Bible.


The above discussion re-reinforces my thesis. The Bible is an edited anthology written by Man through Mankind. Free will disallows an absolute God that created Everything. It might allow for a God that created everything and then gave first Cause. But Man still has that free will to interpret, re-translate, edit, revise and otherwise "misalign" the Bible, thereby creating a product through Mankind. And since the Bible is a wholesome piece of work, changes to its' parts changes the whole. Now please don't take this to mean that that Bible is really Satanic or isn't as valuable. Just because Man wrote the Bible doesn't mean it's less valuable; remember that the Bible says nothing of its' authorship.



posted on Sep, 10 2003 @ 12:04 AM
link   
This is seeming like the second Bush-Gore debate. We seem to be agreeing on a great deal. Some of the questions seem to come down to semantics, (which I am willing to argue), but this matter is much more clean cut than it may seem.

So it is agreed that Man has free will. The argument about praying to God for a wining lottery ticket holds no water. As Garth Brooks so astutely observed "Some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers" (bonus points for using Garth in a Bible debate?)
Certianly far more humans prayed for God to work through them to do His work. God has thousands of people praying for that everyday. He has the power to choose who He works through. He has the decision to let His most devoted servants become His voice here on earth.

I will change analogy's from the tree analogy to a car analogy (The tree/forest analogy still holds up, i just feel the car analogy more descriptive)
A Posche 944 is a creation of Porsche (more specifically Butzi Porsche). Its battery, and spark plugs, and many other components are made by Bosche. The end result, a 944, is still a creation of Porsche. Porsche chose who the compnents that make up the whole come from. Some come from Bosche, some come from other manufacturers. Even if this particular 944 is 20 years old, and people have put aftermarket parts in the car (some good choices, and some bad choices), the car is still a creation of Porsche. Even if someone installs a domestic part that does not quite fit (lost in translation?) It is still a Porsche.

I realize that the preceeding was a rather long and tiresome analogy, but it shows that regardless of translation and filtering, the Bible stands up as the work of God.

The debate is about "The Bible is the work of God through Man"
The fact that it could have been distorted somewhat through the years only proves the "through man" part. Water, through a filter, or with flouride added, is still Water; regardless of the things lost or added in the process.

The Bible, is still the work of God. It has been delivered to us through Man.



posted on Sep, 10 2003 @ 03:30 PM
link   
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



posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 09:40 AM
link   
You yourself said that the physical form of the Bible does not matter. It could be written in sticks and stones, in the sky with clouds, etc. Likewise, changing a 'thou' to a 'you' is minor change in form.
The people of today's society speak a different language than those of societies gone by. Making minor changes in language is paramount to the Bible maintian its 'universal message' These changes are made through man by God, by working through willing servants.
God understands that as society changes, words take on different meanings, and God working through man makes these changes to the Bible so that His message stays updated to best convey the message of creation, salvation and Love.

Your contention is that once something created by God is altered by Man, (even if it was actually altered through man by God), it ceases to be 'the work of God'. The Atlantic Ocean, made by God, hasd been altered by man for centuries. It has been over fished, poluted, and currents changed by melting of ice caps from ozone depletion. Is it still the Atlantic Ocean? Lord Yes!

Ian Fleming wrote the James Bond Novels. John Gardener in more recent years has taken on the mantle. John has made changes (minor). He has updated the character, to speak to more modern audiences, but it is still Ian Fleming's James Bond. The creation, even translated through another author is still the creation of Ian Fleming
It is less of a stretch as far as the Bible goes. The changes in the Bible are still the work of God and they are made through his willing servants.

Regardless of changes, the Bible is the work of God through man. In fact, even the changes are the work of God through man.



posted on Sep, 11 2003 @ 01:13 PM
link   
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...)



posted on Sep, 12 2003 @ 08:52 AM
link   
'The Living Bible' is oftern a term used to refer to the work that the world knows as the bible. This implies a living changing creation.

Different forms of guidance are neccessary for different times in history. ktprktpr brought up a few of the descrepancies, where diferent messages were sent from God for different times in History and different groups of people. Here is another:

In the Old Testament it is said to not eat 'unclean' animals, and a laundry list of animals is presented. In the New Testament, Jesus says all of God's creatures are clean and may be eaten. THis is an example of sciecne progressing from a time when animals such as pork could not be eaten without fear of disease, to a time when they could. God guided his followers through the Bible to know that it was now OK to eat pork etc.

These changes that God inspires can be as small as a 'you' to a 'thou' and as large as a seeming complete change in message, when that change is warranted to keep God's fundemental message alive.

The Bible tells us a few things. It tells how God created the world. It gives us an ancient history of his Followers, their trials, tribulations, and victories. It gives us an account of the birth of His son Jesus, and the Salvation that brought to the world. These things are fundemental to the Bible. They are its core. They were in the early Bibles, they are in the current Bibles. The Bible was created by God, it was God's work through Man, and the current Bible is still God's work through man.



posted on Sep, 12 2003 @ 10:33 AM
link   
Revisions not from God gives a Bible through and by Man
(Hey man, no rebuttals. You're supposed to state your conclusions.)

Humans filter everything they receive through the 5 senses. In the mental sphere a change to a part changes the whole, which causes cumulative damage, or loss of original and true identity. This is much like changes to human DNA and the result. Many changes invariably result in a derivative yet specifically unique work by a different author.

Stumpy and I agree that God may have created everything, but not Everything, which rules out predestination. This allows for free will and the human need to re-translate, edit and revise experience.

God may have written the original Bible. The current Bible has been revised many times over several centuries. Revisions are fine if they come from God. But the moment a question appears, Faith is in question ("I'm not so sure that God wrote this.") and God is cast out. Various inconsistencies among Bible versions (the Apocrypha) and the notion of free will ("You have to ask of God") strongly challenge the assumption that all revision was from God through Man.

We should note that revisionism has not referred to God in all cases, that the Bible comes in various literary shapes and sizes and that Biblical institutions, as brothers and sisters should, do not agree with another. This is a strong attack upon faith that the current Bible was from God and requires a stronger counter (Judges, has that been offered?).

In questioning the source, in questioning the faith, Biblical authorship becomes perverted and the current Bible is cyclically begotten through and from Man. ". . .ye have perverted the words of the living God. . ." Jeremiah 23:36



posted on Sep, 13 2003 @ 06:40 AM
link   
Thankyou both Ktprktpr and Stumpy.

Apologies for being late.I had my Internet access barred.

I will be sending out the voting slips out to our judges today.I will also be posting a poll so members can see if the judges agree with them.

May the best man win.





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join