Got Doubts?

[Bravus]

Does it strengthen your belief in God, in the Scriptures and in His love for you personally?

Yes. No. Yes.

And you didn't answer my question.

[John317]

Those examples you bring up aren't my idea of evidence for the Bible. I don't rely on just one kind of evidence.

I'm peruadedd that the Bible is true on the basis of many kinds of evidences, including history, fulfilled prophecy, archeology, study of the ancient manuscripts, textual evidence, harmony of the Bible, etc., as well as my own personal experiences.

Let me ask you: Why do you believe in God and in the Bible as God's inspired Word?

[Bravus]

Originally Posted By: John317

Does it strengthen your belief in God, in the Scriptures and in His love for you personally?

Yes. No. Yes.

And you didn't answer my question.

Actually, I was a bit too brief there. It does actually strengthen my belief in the Scriptures, just not in a simplistic, literalistic understanding of them.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Do you consider yourself postmodern in your world-view?

Yes. Do you understand what that means?

Yes. I've read quite a bit of philosophy and studied literature as a grad student. One of my favorite courses of study was literary criticism, which includes deconstructionism. I love the postmodern writers, although I haven't read them for several years since my interests have changed so much. But I still have the books in my personal library. One of my favorites used to be Thomas Pynchon. My favorite non-Christian philosopher was Nietzsche, who is considered a heavy influence on postmodernism.

But I do think that trying to apply postmodern ideas to the study of the Bible or to Ellen White's writings is not helpful to the Christian walk with Christ.

Good examples of that are found on the Forum.

[John317]

It [postmodernism] does actually strengthen my belief in the Scriptures, just not in a simplistic, literalistic understanding of them.

Could you give some examples?

[Bravus]

I'm not that keen on putting in the time, only to have them misunderstood and shot down from within a modernist frame.

[CoAspen]

Of course you are being silly! Did you honestly believe there would be no 'negative' before finding out what is being discussed? How long have you been around this forum? Number 1 rule, first look at title of Book or thread, then regurgitate preconceived ideas or opinions and lastly presume what other people are thinking or saying, disguising it by asking off subject questions!! Sheesh!! Try to understand something before trashing it? You are a newbie!!!

(tic)

[fccool]

Those examples you bring up aren't my idea of evidence for the Bible. I don't rely on just one kind of evidence.

I'm peruadedd that the Bible is true on the basis of many kinds of evidences, including history, fulfilled prophecy, archeology, study of the ancient manuscripts, textual evidence, harmony of the Bible, etc., as well as my own personal experiences.

Let me ask you: Why do you believe in God and in the Bible as God's inspired Word?

Can you give me an example from history that would validate Biblical supernatural claims?

[fccool]

Of course you are being silly! Did you honestly believe there would be no 'negative' before finding out what is being discussed? How long have you been around this forum? Number 1 rule, first look at title of Book or thread, then regurgitate preconceived ideas or opinions and lastly presume what other people are thinking or saying, disguising it by asking off subject questions!! Sheesh!! Try to understand something before trashing it? You are a newbie!!!

(tic)

I think that the thread discusses the premise of the book. It's a common sense that we are not going to finish that reading in one night.

Yet, why would it stop us from discussing certain concepts that may or may not be found in the book?

[John317]

Oh my god, man. I have no idea where to even begin.

Perhaps you should try to figure out how to differentiate numerology from mathematics.

Call it what you like. Read it and explain from a naturalistic viewpoint what you find.

There's this book, too:

http://philologos.org/__eb-nis/default.htm

These are really just a minor part of the evidence that the Bible is no merely man-made book.

I think it's a powerful piece of evidence but it would mean nothing to me apart from all the other evidence.

Two strong pieces of evidence which persuade me that the Bible is inspired by God exactly as it claims to be, are (1) Fulfillment of Bible prophecy, and (2) the manuscript evidence showing that the Bible is fundamentally the same as it was very close to the time of its composition.

[John317]

Let me ask you: Why do you believe in God and in the Bible as God's inspired Word?

Originally Posted By: fccool

Can you give me an example from history that would validate Biblical supernatural claims?

How about answering my question first? :-)

[John317]

I think that the thread discusses the premise of the book. It's a common sense that we are not going to finish that reading in one night.

Yet, why would it stop us from discussing certain concepts that may or may not be found in the book?

Exactly. And besides, I did ask about the central teaching in the book and post a link to some of the book reviews.

Any book that says we have a sacred responsibility to question and doubt everything will likely contain the idea that people should doubt God's existence and the truth of the Bible as God's word.

This being a given, I think it's OK for people to talk about the question of questioning or doubting everything.

Granted we haven't read the book, and no one wrote as if they had read it.

[Igakusei]

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

Oh my god, man. I have no idea where to even begin.

Perhaps you should try to figure out how to differentiate numerology from mathematics.

Call it what you like. Read it and explain from a naturalistic viewpoint what you find.

I think fccool already gave you an explanation for it. But as you surely know, there are many, many different versions of the early Biblical texts. I'm sure you're aware of the challenges facing Biblical scholars who try to compare these different versions to determine what the originals most likely said. There are more differences between these versions than there are words in the New Testament.

Now, of course your response will be that most of these words do not significantly alter the meaning, and you would be absolutely correct. But they DO change any numerical patterns that may be there.

So I'll see your link and raise you one that makes a lot more sense, and is a lot less preachy.

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/panin_mark.html

[fccool]

Quote:

Let me ask you: Why do you believe in God and in the Bible as God's inspired Word?

I think I've explained my view of inspiration. Whenever artist is inspired to paint a painting as an example, he's inspired by certain concepts that drive him to put certain representation of reality that they like on paper.

I doubt that we can honestly say that such representation is accurate. Even if we seen the real place, we may not have recognized it, due to it being a different representation.

Biblical inspiration is very similar. The authors are inspired by certain concepts, but they are painting from their own perspective and explanation of certain events. That perspective may not be an accurate depiction of reality, but such is not artists intention to begin with IMO. Their intention is to show the general idea of God-concept as it relates to their own nation, and to unify it under common religious belief.

As I've pointed out before, there are more reasons to believe that Moses did not write the Torah than to believe that he actually did. I can list those for you, if you are interested. But the goal of the authors who compiled and systematized the Torah was to convey certain history and moral concepts by taking various religious traditions and unifying them under a single narrative.

It becomes quite obvious when these narratives are intertwine, break abruptly, and then pick up later on. It becomes obvious when these narratives at times are conflicting with each other and don't have their story straight.

As far as my belief in God, it's really a philosophical question rather the question of objective truth. Considering what I know about history of various religious beliefs, I don't believe that we can come to truly know God through religious literature that tells us about God. It will inevitably fall short, and paint a conflicting and incomplete picture.

IMO God is known through concepts, rather than concrete and systematic theology. I do believe that it's possible that God revealed himself to a nation of Israel, and that Christ came in human form to teach these concepts of God to people, but I have no real way of verifying the veracity of such claims. In fact, Christianity is intact today and did not dissipate like many other religious worldwide is due to it's coherent inability to either prove or disprove certain claims it makes.

In the end, if God exists, it's really up to God to reveal himself to humanity in a way that extends beyond 2000 year old book laced with nationalistic overtones of "God's chosen people".

Any religion you find claims the status of God's chosen, Adventism is no exception. The question is whether the outsiders can indeed confirm the status.

If you read external accounts, there was really nothing special about Israel, which for the most part was a tiny settlement of tribes that eventually formed a nation. There's no world-wide fame of King Solomon to account for in historical records. The kingdom of Israel was a comparative dot on the map, quite insignificant to the real empires or powers of the day.

Almost every country has their ancient heroes that would highhandedly take down armies of people and possess super-human abilities. My birthplace, for example has this guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohdan_Khmelnytsky

But, as any nationalistic history, the deeds of the heroes are greatly exaggerated to the point of them seem super-human. It's the nature of any type chauvinism to adhere to certain ideals to the point of setting back reason.

But these heroes no longer become human. These heroes become humanized principles and ideas. For example, if you see a picture of this guy:

You don't think of him in terms of a human being, who is someone's son, and who has family and history. He was made a symbol of terrorism. He was no longer a human being.

If you know anything about Russian culture... you'll know who this guy is:

He likewise became a super-human idea and concept that went beyond his natural abilities, or history of him as a person. He became a legend that people needed to see.

Much of the Biblical narrative is very similar. It takes ordinary people, and it turns them into symbols and metaphors that carry a certain concept. If you start interpreting them literally, you will not find neither historical support, nor factual veracity to support your beliefs on.

[Tom Wetmore]

Of course you are being silly! Did you honestly believe there would be no 'negative' before finding out what is being discussed? How long have you been around this forum? Number 1 rule, first look at title of Book or thread, then regurgitate preconceived ideas or opinions and lastly presume what other people are thinking or saying, disguising it by asking off subject questions!! Sheesh!! Try to understand something before trashing it? You are a newbie!!!

(tic)

[John317]

...there are many, many different versions of the early Biblical texts.

Versions? I think you've been reading too much stuff written against the Bible.

Your use of the language shows you've never studied the subject in any real depth.

It sounds like you're talking about the variants.

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

I'm sure you're aware of the challenges facing Biblical scholars who try to compare these different versions to determine what the originals most likely said. There are more differences between these versions than there are words in the New Testament.

You description here could easily mislead people into thinking that we can't be certain what the Bible says. I hope that isn't your intention. The truth is that there isn't a single ancient book for which such an abundance of manuscript evidence exists as there is for the Bible.

Originally Posted By: Igakusei

Now, of course your response will be that most of these words do not significantly alter the meaning, and you would be absolutely correct. But they DO change any numerical patterns that may be there.

Yes, you are right that most of the variants don't alter the meaning significantly. But not only do they not alter it significantly but most of the varients don't alter it at all. In fact, most of them don't affect the translation, since they have to do with spelling, etc.

But the point here is that the numerical patterns are based on a single Greek text, and there is no attempt to change the text in order to arrive at a particular numerical pattern. Therefore your theory or explanation falls flat.

Remember that you are dealing with scientists and people who know their material and are not interested in falsehoods any more than you are. They already throught through that problem.

Remember, too, that the W&H text and the TR and Majority Texts agree more often than they disagree.

[John317]

Quote:

Let me ask you: Why do you believe in God and in the Bible as God's inspired Word?

I think I've explained my view of inspiration. Whenever artist is inspired to paint a painting as an example, he's inspired by certain concepts that drive him to put certain representation of reality that they like on paper.

I doubt that we can honestly say that such representation is accurate. Even if we seen the real place, we may not have recognized it, due to it being a different representation.

Biblical inspiration is very similar. The authors are inspired by certain concepts, but they are painting from their own perspective and explanation of certain events. That perspective may not be an accurate depiction of reality, but such is not artists intention to begin with IMO. Their intention is to show the general idea of God-concept as it relates to their own nation, and to unify it under common religious belief.

OK, but your definition doesn't agree with the Bible's teaching about inspiration, so your idea of it is your own personal opinion.

According to the Bible, inspiration has to do with the Holy Spirit giving visions, dreams, and thoughts, as well as helping the person write out those dreams and visions.

What you've described as "inspiration," as you yourself have said, is similar to an artist being "inspired" in the making of his art.

If the Bible's inspiration is as you say, why would we believe that it was inspired by God, any more than a painting or a novel?

This being the case, your subjective opinion contradicts the objective word of God. Your idea, therefore, can't be correct when it comes to describing the inspiration (or origin) of the Scriptures.

[Igakusei]

But the point here is that the numerical patterns are based on a single Greek text, and there is no attempt to change the text in order to arrive at a particular numerical pattern. Therefore your theory or explanation falls flat.

My point is still valid. He picked a single Greek text, and analyzed it until he "found" patterns in the text. He could have used any other "variant" and done the same thing. He also could have used any other book and done the same thing.

If the patterns were significantly more convincing and he arrived at them by studying the original texts, you might have a legitimate argument. But they aren't, and he didn't (because the original texts don't exist).

[CoAspen]

Yet, why would it stop us from discussing certain concepts that may or may not be found in the book?

You're not serious!

A meaningful discussion about a book that no one has read!

[cardw]

OK, but your definition doesn't agree with the Bible's teaching about inspiration, so your idea of it is your own personal opinion.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: John317

But the point here is that the numerical patterns are based on a single Greek text, and there is no attempt to change the text in order to arrive at a particular numerical pattern. Therefore your theory or explanation falls flat.

My point is still valid. He picked a single Greek text, and analyzed it until he "found" patterns in the text. He could have used any other "variant" and done the same thing. He also could have used any other book and done the same thing.

If the patterns were significantly more convincing and he arrived at them by studying the original texts, you might have a legitimate argument. But they aren't, and he didn't (because the original texts don't exist).

There is a computer program available that will generate the patterns from any text you feed it. It completely debunks the idea that numerology has anything to say other than there are patterns in all language.

When you think about it. Duh!

[Pockey]

Totally off topic but is that Viktor Tsoi in the 2nd picture under Osama? I was reading his wiki and he had some pretty progressive ideas for his time. When Radiohead released their album for free online a few years ago that was a big deal. Looks like Tsoi was already doing that (not online obviously) decades before.

[fccool]

Quote:

OK, but your definition doesn't agree with the Bible's teaching about inspiration, so your idea of it is your own personal opinion.

Of course, it will take a full-circle and come back to this issue.

I think I've explained enough about my issue with this idea.

Quote:

According to the Bible, inspiration has to do with the Holy Spirit giving visions, dreams, and thoughts, as well as helping the person write out those dreams and visions.

That's called "possession" and not inspiration.

Quote:

What you've described as "inspiration," as you yourself have said, is similar to an artist being "inspired" in the making of his art.

If the Bible's inspiration is as you say, why would we believe that it was inspired by God, any more than a painting or a novel?

Because we have different concepts of God. You perceive him to be an anthropomorphic guy sitting on the throne somewhere in Orion galaxy, and who can be explained by a book, and who feels human emotion, gets angry, jealous, and wrathful, and very irritable with people who disobey him, although He himself gives them that choice... which he then punishes them for.

I perceive God to be an unexplainable (in our terms) entity that's the ultimate reality of our collective being, the truth of which can't really be explained through words and even concepts of this reality. But that's merely a theory with no underlying proof.

Quote:

This being the case, your subjective opinion contradicts the objective word of God. Your idea, therefore, can't be correct when it comes to describing the inspiration (or origin) of the Scriptures.

The point still stands. You don't have any proof of that, thus it's not objective. An objective proof would be God talking to us like He did to Moses. In the very least, the proof would be an angel sighting at your local church, or reference from a secular historian confirming miraculous deeds of the God of Israel, and the empire that it's grown into under the wisest man that ever lived (who ironically ended up being not so wise).

All you have is claims to objective truth. Are you going to use these claims as proof?

[Bravus]

http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=2580

[John317]

There is a computer program available that will generate the patterns from any text you feed it. It completely debunks the idea that numerology has anything to say other than there are patterns in all language.

When you think about it. Duh!

Hope you don't mind but I'm going to take the advice of Mr. Dark and question everything you're saying here.

Can you prove what you are saying-- I mean offer some concrete evidence and documentation?