Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

No

Only Judeism

Only Islam

Yes to both Judeism and Islam

[Arcvasti]

I believe the Bible was written by/to record the prophets and the acts of God. It is in no way infalliable, although the people who recorded it did a decent job of assuring it remains accurate[Most of the time.]. The NT is probably the best preserved, having accounts by at least four separate people and hapening the most recently.

But it doesn't trump the Bible, it's seen as extra things you're supposed to believe in. So the Pope cannot just add an 11th commandment in Genesis, but he could decree that not wearing pink pants is an article of faith of the Catholic church.

Huh. Wasn't it the catholic church that shifted (or claimed to, anyway) the day of the sabbath around in a display of hilarious authority abuse?*

*And possibly damning a great many people

IIRC, the Jewish day was from one sunset to another. The Sabbath was in what would have been both Saturday and Sunday. The Church shifted it to Sunday because that was the date of Jesus's resurrection.

[Gnorm]

Coming from the opposite end of the spectrum, I think that the Bible is indeed the Word of God. I agree that certain parts of the Word require a certain amount of thought to understand, and that some of the Mosaic Law is specific to the Jews of that time, but the morality put forth in the Bible stands above all times and cultures. As for any lukewarm "Christians" who would reject the inspiration of the Bible, they're just delusional.

[Orange Wizard]

I guess I fall somewhere in the middle. I believe the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but "inspired" in the sense of "gave the authors understanding of the moral/ethical/spiritual bits" rather than "imparted perfect knowledge of all relevant events".

[Gnorm]

I guess I fall somewhere in the middle. I believe the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but "inspired" in the sense of "gave the authors understanding of the moral/ethical/spiritual bits" rather than "imparted perfect knowledge of all relevant events".

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. I personally think that having an account of the "relevant events" that comes from God is one of the essential beliefs of Christianity. Without such a belief, how could one be assured in his beliefs?

[Leafsnail]

Without such a belief, how could one be assured in his beliefs?

Some pretty nice circular reasoning here

[Orange Wizard]

To be fair, belief in the Bible is circular to begin with.

...

Anyway, I don't think all the Biblical stories are made up, per se. There would likely have been oral traditions (especially in the case of Genesis/early Exodus stories) passing them down. There are inaccuracies and inconsistencies, and it's easy to chalk these up to human fallibility (or, if we want to get really meta, it was God's will that his word was recorded falsely).
My belief is that the meaning of the stories is preserved, even if the details are lost to time.

[Gnorm]

Without such a belief, how could one be assured in his beliefs?

Some pretty nice circular reasoning here

You misconstrue, though that is perhaps mostly my fault due to poor phrasing. What I intend to say is that, if one operates under the belief that some or all of the Bible comes from Man, he doesn't have a strong reason to believe in it. If we are to believe that certain parts of the Scripture, namely those that we are uncomfortable about, are untrue, why are we to believe in the parts that we do feel comfortable about, or in the parts on the resurrection and ascension of Christ? My argument is not one for a reason why to believe in the Bible—that's a discussion for which I am not presently in the mood—but one to say that, if you are to be Christian, you should base it on something that you actually believe in; if this is not the Bible, then what is it?

[MrWiggles]

The authority of the bible, comes from the bible and church. The church authority comes from the bible. Its circular. Weather it was divine in part or in whole, it doesn't matter. As there no independent source to make the bible authoritative.

[Vilanat]

Aren't there books in the bible that attribute themselves to Solomon and David? or are you talking about inspired by god, written by men?

[Orange Wizard]

There are different ideas on what "inspired by God" is supposed to mean, yeah.

In some cases it means that the Holy Spirit took over the authors and physically forced them to write exactly what was desired.
Other people think God told people what to write, exact words kinda thing, and they got to it of their own volition.
Some people believe God gave the authors a general understanding of what should be written, to varying degrees of specificness.

Other people (a la Arcvasti and most non-Christians) believe it wasn't inspired at all, and was just people recording events, made up or no.

I vaguely recall some sects that teach God physically wrote everything himself and handed out manuscripts or something, but I've never heard of someone who believes that.

[Gnorm]

The authority of the bible, comes from the bible and church. The church authority comes from the bible. Its circular. Weather it was divine in part or in whole, it doesn't matter. As there no independent source to make the bible authoritative.

Whence do you derive the idea that the authority of the Bible comes from the Church authorities? Also, I think it would be more accurate to say that the Bible's authority is derived from God; it is expounded upon in the Bible.

I vaguely recall some sects that teach God physically wrote everything himself and handed out manuscripts or something, but I've never heard of someone who believes that.

Like the Book of Mormon? I think some really early theologies involved literal dictation, but even the Fundamentalists reject that doctrine.

[Neonivek]

Given Mormon history... Lets probably leave it out of the discussion. It was one of the topics I recognized early as a thread killer.

[TD1]

Coming from the opposite end of the spectrum, I think that the Bible is indeed the Word of God. I agree that certain parts of the Word require a certain amount of thought to understand, and that some of the Mosaic Law is specific to the Jews of that time, but the morality put forth in the Bible stands above all times and cultures. As for any lukewarm "Christians" who would reject the inspiration of the Bible, they're just delusional.

...To be fair, many would also say "Any Christian is delusional"

When it comes to belief, it's just that. Belief. If someone wants to believe God inspired a panda to write the Bible (misconstruing parts here and there, explaining the contradictions), it's as viable a belief as a Christian thinking it was a human 2000 years ago, and they misconstrued some parts of it.

[freeformschooler]

If you believe the Bible is the literal Word of God then you have to accept that all modern editions have been translated from an older language at least once. As such, unless you are willing to assume some Papal-esque infallibility in the translators themselves, you must concede that there is plenty of room for mistranslation in newer editions. So a person who believes the Bible to be the literal Word of God must not only learn Ancient Greek but also read it as a fourth century person as best they can (remember how long it took historians to realize "wine-dark seas" in Homer's book implied they had no word for the color blue back then).

[Helgoland]

Don't some of the less sane sects believe that the King James Bible is the only true bible due to the translator having been divinely inspired?