Divine Inspiration

[Drich]

What? God didn't put these 'facts' into the bible, people did.

Do you honestly think there is anything in the bible that God does not want in it?

The fact that the original message of the bible has been added to or edited makes the bible falliable, even if it were infalliable to begin with, which it was not. How do you know god wanted the bible to be a 'tool'? Does it say so in the bible?

Yes 2tim 3:16

How do you know he approves of it being used incorrectly?

'Differently' does not mean incorrectly. I know we are allowed to view things differently and worship differently because it is spelled out in every book of the New Testament. From the different takes of what was important in the gospels. to how 'differently' Paul was brought into the ministry to each one of the different churches each book was written to. If God demanded uniformity then he would have only needed one book with christianity as He did with the Jews in deuteronomy. As it is written the New testament is a 'testament' as to the nature of the freedom we have to live and worship Christ.

How is it perfect even when it is flawed simply because it is being used as a tool? In fact, a flawed bible is worse than no bible.

That's just it. (Read this next part carfully) The bible is not Flawed. Our understanding of it is. These are the failures that people identify in the bible and attribute to God. When in fact the flaws are from our own understandings.

An intentional issue with continuity is not a flaw. Especially when the intent is to have you continually question and undermine what you think you believe. God is infinite, so why should we ever feel comfortable in what we think we know of Him or what has even been written about Him? If one is honest with Himself he will come to the realization that the more he studies the less he actually 'knows' about God. It is only the fool who thinks he has it and christianity all figured out.

The two accounts contradict each other. One is not simply a deeper form of the other. I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that 'traditional jewish storytelling' would permit obvious contradictions.

2 years of study focoused on Jewish texts.

Well, god hasn't done his job the, has he? The only promises god gives us are of heaven and hell, which we can't test.

again only the fool believes he has it all figured out.
We have been given the promise of the Holy Spirit for all who would simply ask seek and knock as outlined in luke 11. This is where a literal peice of God comes and resides with in you. Giving you the 'proof' and direction you will personally need to establish a faith and maintain it.

If the bible contradicts itself, it is not infalliable, end of story.

Then maybe you could be so good as show me a place where you have personally found such a contradiction.

You honestly believe that it is wrong to let your wife ask other people questions just because the bible says so?

Maybe read the story again and rephrase your question to reflect what i have shared.

I bet you would say it was okay to stone unruly children to death if the bible said...wait,the bible does say that...

It was ok for the people and time in whom that command was given. who are you to say otherwise?

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you're justifying Paul's sexism by saying that women become emotionally unstable when they're shown they are wrong. I don't know how you could think that makes it any better, but we'll roll with it for now.

You are wrong, and have been corrected. In that i gave two examples of women (one where I taught a class and the second where my wife attended a class) where they took personal offense when harshly corrected in front of a group of their peers.
I said I also can see the need for this type of direction given the people and time in which Paul was speaking. Plus when one factors in that he was trying to establish a new church and did not want something like infighting between a man's wife and a teacher to be come a dividing point in the church. i can truly see the need for this rule.
Don't try and boil this down to something it is not. Or I will simply correct your red herring again.

I don't see how you can be on Paul's side but at the same time continue to act as if it's not a part of doctrine.

I see This is where you are truly confused. Understand, I have not tried to justify this sin. I accept it as sin and as a willful disobediance between me and my God.

Why do you answer women's questions?

Because i see a need, and have the ablity/oppertunity to fill that need.

You should point them to the "book, chapter and verse" that says what they're doing is wrong and tell them to be on their way (i.e. go ask your husband).

In the proper setting This is exactly what I should do. (Setting being they are indeed married.)

Clearly "God's Righteousness" isn't what drives you nor is it the Holy Spirit.

Noope. Personal pride and my understanding of what it means to be faithful to what I have been given is what drives me.

You have identified a man's opinion from the 1st century Roman Empire which is clearly sexist, doesn't fit into today's society and have decided to override "infallible scripture".

Again here is where you need to be corrected. I have not justified anything. my actions are a direct result of my own willingness to sin if the face of God and what i as a christian have been commanded to do. Meaning God's word stays intact and is as perfect as it was when first written. It is my understanding of God's word and how it relates to this time and this soceity is where the contradiction lies. I am the fault in the equasion, not the bible.

My advice to you is to take the stance of the moral relativist. That is, accept something as morally right if, and only if, the society accepts that as being morally right.

if I did that then I would also have to "fall to the reasoning" of my peers. I know you may agree with that, but I like to do my own thinking for myself.

Therefore Paul's words can be said to be sexist but because that's the society he lived in, it is therefore morally right. The only problem with this view is two things:

a) It means his teachings can't be applied anymore (because our society isn't ok with sexism).
b) Hence, according to 'a' (surprise surprise) the Bible is fallible.

we've discussed this in another thread already. You are looking to the bible as a book of rules to follow to find righteousness. Which is why it is so important to you that this 'book of rules' match your current understanding of morality. Since i have already given you the long explaination I will give you the short one this time.

The only reason the 'rules' are in the bible is to show you that you can not ever hope to be righteous by following a rule based theology. The rules are there to show you that you are a sinner and nothing else. They are there to convict you of your sin. One you can accept your sin the bible points to the only way of salvation and that is through attonement for your sin. so things like the bit you thought were inconsistancies in the bible remain just as damning then as they are now. The only difference is the attonement offered covers all sin. Again this is what seperates biblical christianity from all other religions. It is not rule based, which pretty much invalidates your whole arguement.

I don't think any other moral ethics stance can justify how it's ok for Paul to say that.

Morality That's the whole issue isn't it? You think we are to be moral and that somehow that warrants eternal life. Ahh, no. This is why i say over and over morality or our "good deeds" are like dirty menstral rags (is the actual translation) to God. Our 'morality' truly, TRULY counts for nothing on it own merrit.

oh p.s. I'm a guy. Not that it matters really...

Good to know that you are not a stumbling block.

Since I'm not the one making radical claims, the issue isn't with me but with you about 'interchangeability'. Clearly you see it as impossible that Moses could write Deuteronomy, but at the same time you think it's ok to accept tradition when it comes to the authorship of the Gospels. What's it going to be?

Moses set up the Levitical lines of preists and scribes. Who do you think copied and transcribed what had been orginall written? how is it not possiable to think that one such scribe/high preist saw a need to close out the account of Moses?