I believe the Bible is the perfect word of God. I do know that there are somethings that are difficult to translate from the original language, but in all of these cases, the church has acknowledged and presented the various other options.

 

The various authors of the books of the bible consistently give God credit for what they are writing. I do not think it makes sense to claim that the Bible is a good book without acknowledging that it is God's word.

In addition to my recent contribution to the discussion, a thought has occurred to me.

 

How, for those who accept the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God, is it that they arrived at accepting this to be so, and if writings previous to the Bible, or even more current writings would have the same type of claim attached to them as being the infallible inspired word of God, how would one discern that it is or isn't?

 

If those who accept the Bible as such was presented with more writings that make a similar claim, then would you accept this, or disbelieve it, and how would you arrive at that conclusion?

 

How did you arrive at the conclusion that what it is you do believe in is valid, and what would prevent you from applying that same faith to other writings claiming the same distinction?

I agree totally with PP1 the Holy Bible is the Word of God.

 

In Israel the Book of Deuteronomy was adopted as the Word of God about 621 B.C. The Torah, or Law (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible), assumed authority around 400 B.C.; the Prophets about 200 B.C.; and the Writings about 100 B.C. After a struggle the Christians determined that the Hebrew Bible was Scripture for them as well. The New Testament as we know it was formed and adopted by church councils between A.D. 200 and A.D. 400.

 

The writers of the Bible were inspired, that they were filled with God's Spirit as they wrote the truth to the best of their knowledge.

 

God was at work in the process of canonization, during which only the most faithful and useful books were adopted as Scripture.

 

The Holy Spirit works today in the study of the Scriptures, especially as we study seeking to relate the old words to life's present realities.

 

Regarding different 'versions' - people have the idea that the Bible has been translated "so many times" that it has become corrupted through stages of translating. If the translations were being made from other translations, they would have a case. But translations are actually made directly from original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic source texts based on thousands of ancient manuscripts.

 

The Old Testament's accuracy was confirmed by an archaeological discovery in 1947, along today's West Bank in Israel. "The Dead Sea Scrolls" contained Old Testament scripture dating 1,000 years older than any manuscripts we had. When comparing the manuscripts at hand with these, from 1,000 years earlier, we find agreement 99.5% of the time. And the .5% differences are minor spelling variances and sentence structure that doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.

 

Regarding the New Testament, it is humanity's most reliable ancient document. We have thousands of copies of the New Testament, all dated closely to the original writing. In fact, we are more sure the New Testament remains as it was originally written by its authors, than we are sure of writings we attribute to Plato, or Aristotle, or Homer's Iliad.

 

Personally speaking the Bible is vital to my life and my belief in God. I look to it for guidance and wisdom on a daily basis.

In addition to my recent contribution to the discussion, a thought has occurred to me.

 

How, for those who accept the Bible as the infallible inspired word of God, is it that they arrived at accepting this to be so, and if writings previous to the Bible, or even more current writings would have the same type of claim attached to them as being the infallible inspired word of God, how would one discern that it is or isn't?

 

If those who accept the Bible as such was presented with more writings that make a similar claim, then would you accept this, or disbelieve it, and how would you arrive at that conclusion?

 

How did you arrive at the conclusion that what it is you do believe in is valid, and what would prevent you from applying that same faith to other writings claiming the same distinction?

 

I would probably be skeptical if a new book came about and the author claimed to be divinely inspired.

 

We are in a different time now. We are in the church age so I believe that God has spoken. The UCC church believes that God is still speaking (that used to be their slogan).

 

I think it is possible that Paul had written other letters to other churches that were also divinely inspired but lost throughout time. But a lot of people and preachers that are smarter than I disagree with me on that.

I would probably be skeptical if a new book came about and the author claimed to be divinely inspired.

 

We are in a different time now. We are in the church age so I believe that God has spoken. The UCC church believes that God is still speaking (that used to be their slogan).

 

I think it is possible that Paul had written other letters to other churches that were also divinely inspired but lost throughout time. But a lot of people and preachers that are smarter than I disagree with me on that.

 

Thanks PP1 for your reply.

 

I guess the most pressing question for me to those who believe that the Bible is the infallible inspired word of God, is how did you arrive at the conclusion that it is, and that this claim is valid?

 

This claim has been passed from generation to generation for centuries, but humans today are not at liberty to have been around when these writings were created, and although there's a fascinating mystic involved in its antiquity, how is it in today's world we can know that what has been passed along as truth, is indeed truth?

 

With millions, perhaps billions of people throughout time perpetually passing this information along, its longevity, as amazing as it seems, is only logical considering the strong belief in it, and the uninterrupted teaching from parents to their children's, children's, children.

 

As amazing as that longevity is, and the fascination with ancient writings, that in itself does not give concrete validation simply because it has existed, and stood the test of time.

 

It does however show how strong a role religious beliefs have had on the masses within a culture throughout centuries, but the question still begs to be asked, how do believers today simply accept that what they've been told is the truth, and do so without question of its validity?

 

Other cultures and religions in like fashion also follow ancient writings, and they too also consider the writings that they follow to be the truth. Their belief that those writings are the truth are equally as strong as those believing that the Bible is the truth. Who is wrong, and who is right when conclusively all are convinced that they are right?

 

If you were raised a Muslim do you think that you would believe in the Bible, or would it be more likely that you would follow the Quran?

 

The more humanity has such an obvious separation of such similar proportions, it screams loudly of the man-madeness of it all, and how strong religion has perpetuated such beliefs over the centuries from generation to generation.

 

It's certainly a result of human behavior and mass intoxication. It being a result of some definitive truth is an entirely different question all together.

 

But at the end of the day, how does one arrive at concluding that the Bible is the infallible inspired word of God, and how did you arrive at that conclusion, and that this claim is valid?

 

I'm assuming that many were raised from birth with the belief before having any reason to question it, so I wonder if for some, has the more not so childlike mind ever given it analysis on various objective levels, or has the degree of belief pretty much stayed as it was in your original subjective exposure to the information?

I guess it does take some faith in what I was taught. I also can look at it academically and logically too. We have very little access to original writings that date back 2000 years, I actually think that there is not original letter or document available to us, we just have copies that were made by the 1st century church. However, when the dead sea scrolls were discovered we finally had access to some even older copies of Isaiah, Mark, Esther and other books. The dead sea scrolls matched exactly to the King James bible that was used at the time.

 

I strongly believe that the Bible that sits on my desk contains the exact same message as the original documents (I think they are referred to as signatures) written by the authors of the 66 books. Throughout canonization that was performed by the best experts of the period and translations to the NIV by the best experts of 1984, I know that what I read is what the original audience read.

 

I believe it is God's word because I believe that Jesus actually said "All scripture is God Breathed" and that Peter actually said in 2 Peter 1 20-21 "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

 

These men died for these ideas and I believe them. But it does take faith. I guess you're right if you say that we cannot be absolutely, positively, sure.

 

Did I answer your question?

I guess it does take some faith in what I was taught. I also can look at it academically and logically too. We have very little access to original writings that date back 2000 years, I actually think that there is not original letter or document available to us, we just have copies that were made by the 1st century church. However, when the dead sea scrolls were discovered we finally had access to some even older copies of Isaiah, Mark, Esther and other books. The dead sea scrolls matched exactly to the King James bible that was used at the time.

 

I strongly believe that the Bible that sits on my desk contains the exact same message as the original documents (I think they are referred to as signatures) written by the authors of the 66 books. Throughout canonization that was performed by the best experts of the period and translations to the NIV by the best experts of 1984, I know that what I read is what the original audience read.

 

I believe it is God's word because I believe that Jesus actually said "All scripture is God Breathed" and that Peter actually said in 2 Peter 1 20-21 "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."

 

These men died for these ideas and I believe them. But it does take faith. I guess you're right if you say that we cannot be absolutely, positively, sure.

 

Did I answer your question?

 

Thank you for your well thought out reply.

 

I'm pleased that you approached your answer realistically, and with honesty.

 

Personally I can't say what I believe in with complete certainty, but I'd be more inclined to listen to one who understands the basis for their faith and its realistic limitations, however strong the belief may be.

 

If someone such as yourself has tested your faith with real analysis and remains passionate for what you believe, I find that admirable.

 

When someone approaches it with 100% subjectivity, and follows their reasoning with again 100% subjectivity is when they lose me.

 

If for some to say "I believe because that's just the way it is, no ifs, ands, or buts", and they take offense to objective questioning, then it just becomes apples and oranges, and little sense in discussing things any further. No offense to them if that's where they are, but personally I need more than "Just believe it, and don't question it because that's just the way it is".

 

If the Bible is actually what it is claimed to be then I would find that to be extremely important and fascinating. From what I understand there are actually similarities between the Bible and the Quran, so who knows, if this God truly does exist and was inspiring writings of its subjects, then I suppose an argument could also be made that the messages God was aiming to pass along were placed in the penned hands of many that showed up in both books, and it is just we humans who have considered them to be separate entities, when maybe they're much closer to being the same than we'd like to admit.

 

My passion for the knowledge of the ultimate truth is real. I accept that others have faith and feel a firm grasp on what they already believe in. They should certainly be free to. I personally have many questions and it's likely that I always will, but still hold a certain amount a spiritual hope and faith, although it probably can't be defined in conventional terms. In this journey called life it's what presently keeps me from feeling alone, and in certain ways it feels that life experiences have opened my eyes to things I once disregarded, making me more inclined to stay open to what future life experiences may have in store for me. My tendency to question or disprove is not nearly as strong as my quest for knowing and understanding, but it's a battle as much as it is a balance that I try to find peace of mind with and contentment as I venture through my remaining, and hopefully many more days.

Just a question...so, is communion THE body and blood of Christ or symbolic of the body and blood of Christ? This was a big point of emphasis in the Catholic religion a couple of years ago, and we were lost at the literal interpretation.

From what I understand there are actually similarities between the Bible and the Quran,

 

There would be. The most important person in the religion of Islam is actually Jesus. They believe that at the end of time Jesus will save people on Earth, they just don't believe he is God or is the Son of God (I think). The actual religion of Islam agrees with the Old Testament but claims that the New Testament contains several errors. The Koran or Quran, written by Mohammed, is the "edited/revised/correct" version of what God/Allah wanted the New Testament to be.

 

Keep in mind there are differences between what a religion actually teaches and what individuals who claim to be a part of that religion believe and practice. I am not a muslim and I believe that their doctrine is wrong, but it is a peaceful and relatively loving religion.

Just a question...so, is communion THE body and blood of Christ or symbolic of the body and blood of Christ? This was a big point of emphasis in the Catholic religion a couple of years ago, and we were lost at the literal interpretation.

 

Bound, as I am, by the teachings of Christ revealed in Holy Scripture, sacred tradition, and taught through the Magisterium of the Holy Catholic Church, I believe that communion is the real presence of the body and blood of Christ.

Science friction -- what are your thoughts on the Bible -- not about God , but the book . Is it real ? Who made that stuff up ? Why did they write it ?

 

I think there are some words of wisdom in the Bible, as there are in other religious texts. There are also a lot of rather crazy things in the Bible, as there are in the Koran and others. Is it real? I don't know that anyone could definitely say. I do think some of the writers, particularly John, were imbibing some pretty powerful herbs to promp them to write some of that stuff. Inspired by some divine creator? Not one scintilla of evidence to indicate that it was inspired by anything other some powerful mushrooms. I think a very, very good case could be made that the "Apostle" Paul was a complete fraud. No Paul...No Jesus. It could all be fiction. Very possible.

I think there are some words of wisdom in the Bible, as there are in other religious texts. There are also a lot of rather crazy things in the Bible, as there are in the Koran and others. Is it real? I don't know that anyone could definitely say. I do think some of the writers, particularly John, were imbibing some pretty powerful herbs to promp them to write some of that stuff. Inspired by some divine creator? Not one scintilla of evidence to indicate that it was inspired by anything other some powerful mushrooms. I think a very, very good case could be made that the "Apostle" Paul was a complete fraud. No Paul...No Jesus. It could all be fiction. Very possible.

 

Interesting. Why is it you think that Paul and Jesus were frauds? Never really heard anyone dispute that so I'm curious.

I agree totally with PP1 the Holy Bible is the Word of God.

 

In Israel the Book of Deuteronomy was adopted as the Word of God about 621 B.C. The Torah, or Law (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible), assumed authority around 400 B.C.; the Prophets about 200 B.C.; and the Writings about 100 B.C. After a struggle the Christians determined that the Hebrew Bible was Scripture for them as well. The New Testament as we know it was formed and adopted by church councils between A.D. 200 and A.D. 400.

 

The writers of the Bible were inspired, that they were filled with God's Spirit as they wrote the truth to the best of their knowledge.

 

God was at work in the process of canonization, during which only the most faithful and useful books were adopted as Scripture.

 

The Holy Spirit works today in the study of the Scriptures, especially as we study seeking to relate the old words to life's present realities.

 

Regarding different 'versions' - people have the idea that the Bible has been translated "so many times" that it has become corrupted through stages of translating. If the translations were being made from other translations, they would have a case. But translations are actually made directly from original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic source texts based on thousands of ancient manuscripts.

 

The Old Testament's accuracy was confirmed by an archaeological discovery in 1947, along today's West Bank in Israel. "The Dead Sea Scrolls" contained Old Testament scripture dating 1,000 years older than any manuscripts we had. When comparing the manuscripts at hand with these, from 1,000 years earlier, we find agreement 99.5% of the time. And the .5% differences are minor spelling variances and sentence structure that doesn't change the meaning of the sentence.

 

Regarding the New Testament, it is humanity's most reliable ancient document. We have thousands of copies of the New Testament, all dated closely to the original writing. In fact, we are more sure the New Testament remains as it was originally written by its authors, than we are sure of writings we attribute to Plato, or Aristotle, or Homer's Iliad.

 

Personally speaking the Bible is vital to my life and my belief in God. I look to it for guidance and wisdom on a daily basis.

 

 

So, I assume you stone your children to death if they disobey you as the Bible dictates?

So, I assume you stone your children to death if they disobey you as the Bible dictates?

No, that would be a wrong assumption on your part.

 

Allow me to pursue the context. The passage you refer to is an application of moral law, specifically the sixth commandment on murder. The entire chapter deals with the second law (that is what the word Deuteronomy means) or specific applications of that sixth commandment. In its context several issues emerge. First, the youth is out of control and is a danger to society. That is evident from the words used to describe his behavior. Second, there is no evidence anywhere in Scripture that this sentence ever had to be carried out. Third, the specific reason for such an insistence upon the protection of society is spelled out in verse 21 … Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. The fear of God is a lost Biblical doctrine. If one wants to know what God thinks of sin, he need look no further than the cross where God turned His back on His only Son in love to redeem a fallen race.

 

Just as I believe all Scripture is divinely inspired so I also believe the civil, moral and ceremonial law of Deuteronomy is divinely inspired to point us to our need of a Savior. The Old Testament was fulfilled in the New Testament by Jesus.

 

SF, I hope I've answered your question. I respect your unbelief but do me a favor and don't make assumptions based on your skepticism. I'll be keeping you in my prayers.

No Paul...No Jesus. It could all be fiction. Very possible.

 

Well those two people actually existed. They are historical figures and are mentioned in both secular and religious texts. You can't say that there was no Paul or Jesus.