Is the Bible the Word of God?? Yes or No?

[Igakusei]

Your "graceful degredation" argument is based on the athiestic belief that belief in God is a mega-belief . The "graceful degredation" argument is applied against all Christian points of view and so defines any argument for Christianity as "not very good".

Sorry, no sale.

Read what I wrote again. I said human beliefs. I didn't say Christians, or Hindus, or atheists, or postal clerks, or aerospace engineers. I said humans. This is simply part of the way we network different beliefs about reality, and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the beliefs are actually true or not (one more time it has absolutely nothing to do with whether the beliefs are actually true or not), it's simply part of the way our brains work.

Part of your problem is that you're so intent on disagreeing with people who believe differently than you that you aren't even capable of understanding what they're saying. You're a lot like Bob, in that respect.

Edit: I edited my first post a little bit so hopefully you'll find my point less elusive.

[BobRyan]

There's a concept in network theory called graceful degradation, where a system is able to continue operating properly in the event of the failure of some of its components.

This is directly analogous to the way we humans construct our belief systems, where one "mega" belief (e.g. belief in God (or so joeb doesn't think I'm attacking Christians it might be belief in the way a certain macroeconomic system works)) might be supported by dozens of other beliefs, and it takes convincing attacks on many of those supporting beliefs before the mega-belief is ever questioned.

The reason I bring this up is that arguments like Paul's quoted above are relying on this system as a way of avoiding actually addressing the problem.

[debbym]

Quote:

A. Some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead.

B. If there was no resurrection, then Christ did not rise, and we will not rise, and we are all wrong.

C. Therefore there must have been a resurrection.

He doesn't explicitly say C

Paul was addressing a false theory that had come into the church. he was just emphasizing the consequences of the error.

A. Some of you suggest that evolution is true

B. If evolution were true, everything we believe would be thrown into disarray and much of our most cherished beliefs would be wrong.

C. Therefore, evolution is wrong

the theory of evolution is not unlike an endless stream of beliefs and ideas, and theories from before the flood that contradicts faith in the story of the creation and fall of man, and the story of redemption.

evolution is not wrong nor is the idea of no Resurrection not wrong simply because to accept them intrinsically undermines our faith.

having faith and a relationship in a loving God whose authority and power is above all the creation he created and all the laws creates a new paradigm. Simply because some argument or belief of someone, whether they are a master scientist, or David Hawkins or other, ... will not consequentially disturb the faith of someone who understands something substantial about the love of God, is not the reason for it's dismissal. errors are dismissed because they cannot compete, they cannot hold up to the force of the reality that Divine Love is the foundation of his throne.

but one who has such faith can freely acknowledge that such ideas are excluding to the reality within their faith, and they will be easily tabled for a higher far more profound construct of reality.

Paul was just acknowledging that such an idea of no Resurrection essentially shuts out those who believe such things from hope of living forever.

Falsehood, and errors, based in human reason, are like waves of the ocean that cannot overtake the mountain.

Divine love draws on every power of the mind and body and soul, every fiber of the being in being can be touched by it. Comprehending something of it, finding one coming so fully alive in every power of the mind and body is not something you want to dismiss. Once you are so alive, that which leads to something lesser loses it's attraction.

this obviously doesn't remove the conflict between those who have such an experience and those who do not.

it wont keep either side from talking about it. Paul tried reasoning with the intellectuals of his time and found it was futile to bringing understanding of his Spiritual reality and his relationship to God. Finally he said, "i am determined to know nothing among you but Jesus Christ and Him crucified."

if your highest authority is human reasoning, you will not come to a knowledge of God. there is a scriptural truth that says, "can a man by searching find out God?" and the answer is no. Unless you come to have a willingness to accept a higher authority then human reason, you are not willing to know God. But whenever you would then you would be open to God making himself known to you. And there is a scriptural truth that say's "God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to a knowledge of truth and be saved."

so i believe with all my heart that God will make himself known to anyone anywhere who is willing to know him. God helps me with my limited human heart to know him more, in the gentlest, kindest, most patient ways.

[Ted Oplinger]

/sigh

Pauls argument goes like this:

A. Some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead.

B. If there was no resurrection, then Christ did not rise, and we will not rise, and we are all wrong.

C. Therefore there must have been a resurrection.

He doesn't explicitly say C, but it's essentially the whole point. It's also where the fallacy lies, because it doesn't follow from B.

Similarly, the SDA position on evolution goes something like this:

A. Some of you suggest that evolution is true

B. If evolution were true, everything we believe would be thrown into disarray and much of our most cherished beliefs would be wrong.

C. Therefore, evolution is wrong

Same thing. My entire point was that using these arguments to justify the conclusions at 'C' is poor reasoning, and you seem to have replied that 'B' is logically coherent. B is logically coherent, but deriving C from B, as I explained in my previous point but you apparently didn't take the time to understand, is not.

/SIGH...

Igakusei, you did not state Paul's argument correctly. Paul is not arguing to validate the resurrection; on the contrary, he is demonstrating the foolishness of denying the resurrection. That is a major difference in argument. You proceed from a flawed premise in your argument.

Paul's argument is this:

A - Since Christ is preached as raised from the dead (fact), WHY are some of you saying there is no resurrection from the dead? (I Cor 15:12)

B - For the sake of argument, suppose Christ wasn't raised from the dead (verse 13); then

• B1 - our preaching is in vain, your faith is in vain (verse 14)

• B2 - we are false witnesses in preaching Christ's resurrection, when He wasn't (verse 15)

• B3 - if there is no resurrection, then Christ isn't raised (verse 16), therefore

• B4 - your faith is worthless, you are still in your sins (verse 17)

• B5 - those who are dead are totally gone now - no hope for life for them, and (verse 18)

• B6 - that would make the hope of Christ in this life a most pitiful life's existence. (verse 19)

C - BUT Christ is in fact raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are dead (verse 20)

And Paul goes on to affirm the consequences of that fact in verses following (21-31).

Paul is not pitching this discussion to those who are on the outside (trying to convince them of the resurrection), but to those who believe - members of the Corinthian church who have heard the eyewitness accounts of those who know for a fact Christ is alive, raised from the dead.

I don't buy your reckoning of Paul's argument here of being "circular reasoning", simply because you have started with a flawed premise. Paul argues from an established fact, not to establish a belief. He entertains the notion of no resurrection to simply demonstrate the folly of trying to believe in God but reject the power of God. That is a far cry from your premise Paul is trying to "prove" a resurrection from "circular reasoning".

Your extension to the topic of evolution amuses me...as it is built on the same flawed premise that Creation is something to be "proved", when it is actually argued from the point of fact. Creation is vindicated by the resurrection of Christ...but that is a concept that those on the outside looking in cannot grasp.

Blessings,

[phkrause]

Excellent, excellent post Bob.

[debbym]

Bob,

the issue here is that... we as laodicea are capable of marvelously quoting scripture and boasting how we are rich and increased with goods and have need of nothing...

... so plump with accurate theology, and gifts in our church... and still remain blind, naked and destitute without eye salve that we might see, the Holy Spirit, raiment that we might be clothed, standing in the merits of Christ's righteousness, and gold tried in fire, faith that works by love... that we might be rich.

wielding the scriptures is no assurance we have Jesus. Satan wields scriptures too.

having a spiritual euphoria is no evidence we are lead by the spirit, there are an infinite number of ways we can come to feel good in this world, even in the very name of Jesus... and none of them are necessarily from God.

we can get everything right, do everything right and live in a faith that works by fear... and not know God, even as we are saturated with the true religion.

it is back to Jacob's struggle,

"let him take hold of my strength to make peace with me, and he shall make peace with me"

"it is the work of the Holy Spirit to lay the glory of man in the dust."

"Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

"Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls."

[JoeMo]

Quote:

He entertains the notion of no resurrection to simply demonstrate the folly of trying to believe in God but reject the power of God.

Great point, Ted; and well stated. Paul discusses the same subject more directly Then he talks to Timothy is 2 Timothy 3:

Quote:

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves ...

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

We may not turn away from the "power" by denying the resurrection; but we turn away from the "power" in many other ways. For example:

- We deny the power of grace as the as the sole source of salvation and eternal life (i.e., we think we must keep the whole law (perfectly by the time Christ returns) or we are "toast(ed)".

- We deny the power promised to us by Christ in John 14 and the signs of His followers given in Mark 16 to perform signs and wonders in the name of Jesus to give authority to our words. Some of us even say miracles immediately make them suspect them as satanic delusion.

- With the exception of EGW's gift of prophecy, we deny the reality of spiritual gifts like tongues, prophecy, and interpretation for most people passing them off as delusional or demonic.

The topic of this thread is "Is the Bible the Word of God?? Yes or No?" If the answer is "Yes", why don't all us Christian SDA's accept that it is by grace alone that we are saved? That we have the same miracle-producing power in us that Jesus had (the power of the Spirit - Jesus did nothing using His own "God" powers while He was on earth)? That spiritual gifting is for the church at large rather than a very few "chosen" indeviduals?

When the Spirit is poured out on ALL men; and people from all walks of life just spontaneously come to Jesus (not necessarily Adventism)are we going to reject that Bible truth too; because they don't keep our Sabbath or accept the infallibility of EGW? If we want other faiths to take the Bible as truth, we need to start believing it ourselves.

[JoeMo]

For the record, I believe the bible is the truth as far as containing the information we need to know God and the plan of ( or path to) salvation. I question how I personally interpret some things; and wonder if the the narrative some of the writers wasn't a little biased by their ethnic pride and previous personal baggage. I do not believe it is my place to shove the bible down someone else's throat and judge or condemn them because they believe differently. From a strict perspective of intelligence, self-discipline and ethical horse-sense; I view them as superiors. Just verbalizing that humbles me.

Father God, I truly believe you are out there taking a Personal interest in me and my destiny. Help me to reflect the character of Jesus, so that my walk would be a witness to your love and power; that when people would see and hear me, they see You the way You truly are rather than how religion says You are.

[Kevin H]

I was too tired to write on this but I was noticing that Igakusei's post was NOT what Paul was saying and I agree with what Ted pointed out. I'm sorry Igakusei. Thank you Ted

[Kevin H]

The principles of the Bible stand. But sometimes there are specific details such as how many faithful spys were there? Depending on where you read there were either one, two or twelve. One because there are different passages that suggest that Joshua may not have been one of the 12 spys, while other passages clearly has Joshua as one of the spys. The writings from the south have two spys giving a good report and the other 10 spys giving a bad report. However Deuteronomy and writings from the North have all 12 spys giving a good report, the people rejecting the spys report and Joshua and Caleb coming to the defense of the spys agaist the people.

Does this dissagreement in number of spys mean that the event did not happen or that we are to give up faith in the message of the Bible? Of course not.

However Satan has two plans of attack to fulfill the last deception of making of no effect the spirit of prophecy. One is by having scoffers. The other is to make strong believers, VERY strong believers, but believers in a wrong way of understanding and using the Bible. I believe that the 1919 Washington DC Bible conference tried to keep us on the track of truth, and that the 1919 Philadelphia Bible Conference is Satan's Trojan horse to prepare to fulfill the last deception from inside the church.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

Does this dissagreement in number of spys mean that the event did not happen or that we are to give up faith in the message of the Bible? Of course not.

Perfect example of what I was talking about Kevin.

Quote:

Satan has two plans of attack to fulfill the last deception of making of no effect the spirit of prophecy. One is by having scoffers. The other is to make strong believers, VERY strong believers, but believers in a wrong way of understanding and using the Bible.

I pretty much agree with this statement also; although I would imagine many on this board place me with satan's scoffers...

Anyways, Kevin, nice post!

[anto]

For the record, I believe the bible is the truth as far as containing the information we need to know God and the plan of ( or path to) salvation. I question how I personally interpret some things; and wonder if the the narrative some of the writers wasn't a little biased by their ethnic pride and previous personal baggage.

...and perhaps by their distorted view of what God was like. Thanks Joe, I believe so as well.

[JoeMo]

Welcome, Anthony! I hope you enjoy the dialogue here.

Thanks for the support, bud!

[anto]

To me the answer to the question in the title of this thread is, yes. It's a no-brainer to me too. Why? Because if God cannot make sure the Bible accurately portrays His ideas, His attitudes toward us, and toward sin, then of what use is the Bible? ...

[anto]

Welcome, Anthony! I hope you enjoy the dialogue here.

Thanks for the support, bud!

Joe. You're welcome mate, what's it like in Denver CO?

This site is a gold-mine, I love it. Lot's of great info and references.

aDios amigo

[APL]

"Holy men of old - moved by the Holy Spirit - spoke from GOD" 2Peter 1:20-21.

That says it all.

Jesus refers to the OT text as the "Word of God" in Mark 7:13.

I believe Jesus knew what He was talking about.

in Christ,

Bob

How do you understand this?

The stamps of minds are different. All do not understand expressions and statements alike. Some understand the statements of the Scriptures to suit their own particular minds and cases. Prepossessions, prejudices, and passions have a strong influence to darken the understanding and confuse the mind even in reading the words of Holy Writ. {1SM 20.3}

The disciples traveling to Emmaus needed to be disentangled in their interpretation of the Scriptures. Jesus walked with them disguised, and as a man He talked with them. Beginning at Moses and the prophets He taught them in all things concerning Himself, that His life, His mission, His sufferings, His death were just as the Word of God had foretold. He opened their understanding that they might understand the Scriptures. How quickly He straightened out the tangled ends and showed the unity and divine verity of the Scriptures. How much men in these times need their understanding opened. {1SM 20.4}

The Bible is written by inspired men, but it is not God's mode of thought and expression. It is that of humanity. God, as a writer, is not represented. Men will often say such an expression is not like God. But God has not put Himself in words, in logic, in rhetoric, on trial in the Bible. The writers of the Bible were God's penmen, not His pen. Look at the different writers. {1SM 21.1}

It is not the words of the Bible that are inspired, but the men that were inspired. Inspiration acts not on the man's words or his expressions but on the man himself, who, under the influence of the Holy Ghost, is imbued with thoughts. But the words receive the impress of the individual mind. The divine mind is diffused. The divine mind and will is combined with the human mind and will; thus the utterances of the man are the word of God.-- Manuscript 24, 1886 (written in Europe in 1886). {1SM 21.2}

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

"Holy men of old - moved by the Holy Spirit - spoke from GOD" 2Peter 1:20-21.

That says it all.

Jesus refers to the OT text as the "Word of God" in Mark 7:13.

I believe Jesus knew what He was talking about.

in Christ,

Bob

How do you understand this?

The stamps of minds are different. All do not understand expressions and statements alike.

[BobRyan]

Ellen White says that the Bible is in verity - the "Word of God" spoken to each individual as if you could hear God speaking.

Quote:

The Scriptures are to be received as God's word to us, not written merely, but spoken. When the afflicted ones came to Christ, He beheld not only those who asked for help, but all who throughout the ages should come to Him in like need and with like faith. When He said to the paralytic, "Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee"; when He said to the woman of Capernaum, "Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace," He spoke to other afflicted, sin-burdened ones who should seek His help. {FLB 9.4}

So with all the promises of God's Word. In them He is speaking to us individually, speaking as directly as if we could listen to His voice. It is in these promises that Christ communicates to us His grace and power. They are leaves from that tree which is "for the healing of the nations." Received, assimilated, they are to be the strength of the character, the inspiration and sustenance of the life.

{FLB 9.5}

[joeb]

Ellen White says that the Bible is in verity - the "Word of God" spoken to each individual as if you could hear God speaking.

Quote:

The Scriptures are to be received as God's word to us, not written merely, but spoken. When the afflicted ones came to Christ, He beheld not only those who asked for help, but all who throughout the ages should come to Him in like need and with like faith. When He said to the paralytic, "Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee"; when He said to the woman of Capernaum, "Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath made thee whole; go in peace," He spoke to other afflicted, sin-burdened ones who should seek His help. {FLB 9.4}

So with all the promises of God's Word. In them He is speaking to us individually, speaking as directly as if we could listen to His voice. It is in these promises that Christ communicates to us His grace and power. They are leaves from that tree which is "for the healing of the nations." Received, assimilated, they are to be the strength of the character, the inspiration and sustenance of the life.

{FLB 9.5}

[BobRyan]

[JoeMo]

Quote:

what's it like in Denver CO?

It's a temperate, fairly high altitude (over 1500 meters)large city (about 3 million in the metro area). With nearby mountains over 4,250 meters in elevation, lots of good snow-skiing in the winter and hiking/camping in the summer. We're having quite volatile weather this time of year - sunny and 20 degrees Celsius one day; and snow with 3 degrees the next.

Quote:

This site is a gold-mine, I love it. Lot's of great info and references.

Yes it is. I love the diversity and international flavor here. Lots of spiritual viewpoints from "Shiite" Adventism to atheism; from ultra conservatism to the free-wheeling liberalism.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

I believe the bible's purpose is to draw us close to God when we read it in faith. If God is sometimes misrepresented, as I believe there are instances where this happens, particularly in the OT, the solution to the puzzle invariably seems to present itself with continued reading.

I agree, Anto. I also believe that how we read scripture (and how we are 'taught" what scripture "says" contributes much to our misunderstanding.

An example - In the OT, when God says he will "bring" some sort of calamity on some city or nation, it is easy to interpret this as a curse. Could it be that, since God admits that He creates both good and evil (Ref. Is. 45:7), that He is simply admitting that He is ultimately accountable for all that takes place, regardless of the events that predicated the calamily. Would the Babylonian captivity have actually occured if the kings of Judah had not rebelled twice against King Nebbie?

Another example, this time from the NT - Hebrews 6:4-7 says:

Quote:

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen[c] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

and hebrews 10:26-29 says"

Quote:

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

I have heard many sermons on these two passages teach that these verses refer to the danger of being lost for any sins we commit after baptism. The purpose of these sermons is to scare people into abject submission to the Law as interpreted by the denomination or else.

Given the subject matter of the Book of Hebrews (Christ died once and for all for the forgiveness of every sin ever committed - past, present, and future), could it be that Paul is actually warning people about discounting the value of Christ's blood and sacrifice; and going back to "earning" salvation through the sacrificial system and Mosaic law that puts people in jeoprody? IMO, Paul's real message seems to be just the opposite of how we were "taught" to interpret these verses.

[joeb]

Quote:

I believe the bible's purpose is to draw us close to God when we read it in faith. If God is sometimes misrepresented, as I believe there are instances where this happens, particularly in the OT, the solution to the puzzle invariably seems to present itself with continued reading.

I agree, Anto. I also believe that how we read scripture (and how we are 'taught" what scripture "says" contributes much to our misunderstanding.

An example - In the OT, when God says he will "bring" some sort of calamity on some city or nation, it is easy to interpret this as a curse. Could it be that, since God admits that He creates both good and evil (Ref. Is. 45:7), that He is simply admitting that He is ultimately accountable for all that takes place, regardless of the events that predicated the calamily. Would the Babylonian captivity have actually occured if the kings of Judah had not rebelled twice against King Nebbie?

Another example, this time from the NT - Hebrews 6:4-7 says:

Quote:

It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen[c] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

and hebrews 10:26-29 says"

Quote:

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?

I have heard many sermons on these two passages teach that these verses refer to the danger of being lost for any sins we commit after baptism. The purpose of these sermons is to scare people into abject submission to the Law as interpreted by the denomination or else.

Given the subject matter of the Book of Hebrews (Christ died once and for all for the forgiveness of every sin ever committed - past, present, and future), could it be that Paul is actually warning people about discounting the value of Christ's blood and sacrifice; and going back to "earning" salvation through the sacrificial system and Mosaic law that puts people in jeoprody? IMO, Paul's real message seems to be just the opposite of how we were "taught" to interpret these verses.

JoeMo,

Out of curiosity, do you believe it is possible for a Christian to commit the unpardonable sin?

[JoeMo]

Yes. That being said, would he/she still be a Christian if they did commit the unpardonable sin? What makes that sin unpardonable? For that matter, what is the unpardonable sin (maybe a subject for a new thread?) If you, as a Christian, are worried that you might have committed the unpardonable sin, did you really commit it?

[CoAspen]

A really simple answer to a question often asked as if it is profound. The unpardonable sin is the one sin a person convicted of, by God, refuses to turn away from. Don't ask forgiveness, God can't pardon!!! Not something to 'worry' about or to spend great amounts of time dissecting. Just keep listening to the voice of the Holy Spirit!!!