The Divinity of Scripture

[Khatru]

I often hear about the divine nature of scripture, about how it's the error-free word of God, etc.  I do believe there are passages in the Bible that tell us this although I'm not sure whether those passages say that scripture is inerrant.

2 Timothy claims that scriptures are "God-breathed".  Obviously he was referring to OT scriptures and not the NT

If all scriptures are "God-breathed" (whatever that's supposed to mean) then why are so many scriptures left out of the Bible?

[Sassy]

I often hear about the divine nature of scripture, about how it's the error-free word of God, etc.  I do believe there are passages in the Bible that tell us this although I'm not sure whether those passages say that scripture is inerrant.

2 Timothy claims that scriptures are "God-breathed".  Obviously he was referring to OT scriptures and not the NT

If all scriptures are "God-breathed" (whatever that's supposed to mean) then why are so many scriptures left out of the Bible?

left out of whose scriptures? Jewish or Christian religion.

[Khatru]

left out of whose scriptures? Jewish or Christian religion.

I was talking about the Christian Bible where a slew of gospels, letters and various other scriptures have been discarded.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I was talking about the Christian Bible where a slew of gospels, letters and various other scriptures have been discarded.

Most collections are edited down Khatru for reasons of relevance.

In all the documents which didn't make it though there are documents referring to jesus as a mere prophet, a false prophet, a specially created superhuman, even some kind of Holy Hologram but funnily none as far as I know which would resemble anything circulating in the wild and wacky world of today's antitheism.

Like Modern Pagans you guys are ,well, a modern phenomenon.

[Sassy]

I was talking about the Christian Bible where a slew of gospels, letters and various other scriptures have been discarded.

But you said:

2 Timothy claims that scriptures are "God-breathed".  Obviously he was referring to OT scriptures and not the NT

If all scriptures are "God-breathed" (whatever that's supposed to mean) then why are so many scriptures left out of the Bible?

There was no gospels in the OT. and you said Timothy referring to OT and we both know ONLY THE OT was referred to as scripture by God, Jesus Christ, the Prophets  and the Apostles.  As the NT not in the Jewish bible. I asked which RELIGION they had been omitted from. So can we start again...

[Sassy]

Most collections are edited down Khatru for reasons of relevance.

In all the documents which didn't make it though there are documents referring to jesus as a mere prophet, a false prophet, a specially created superhuman, even some kind of Holy Hologram but funnily none as far as I know which would resemble anything circulating in the wild and wacky world of today's antitheism.

Like Modern Pagans you guys are ,well, a modern phenomenon.

They felt it necessary only to use the narratives which explained everything in the most simple terms.

[Hope]

I often hear about the divine nature of scripture, about how it's the error-free word of God, etc.  I do believe there are passages in the Bible that tell us this although I'm not sure whether those passages say that scripture is inerrant.

2 Timothy claims that scriptures are "God-breathed".  Obviously he was referring to OT scriptures and not the NT

If all scriptures are "God-breathed" (whatever that's supposed to mean) then why are so many scriptures left out of the Bible?

Had to think very carefully about what you meant by the 'divinity' of Scripture, especially as it isn't a Christian concept, let alone a Biblical one.  Regarding 'God-breathed', it isn't talking about the material being given word for word by God, it's referring to the fact that it is inspired by God.

By the time that 2 Timothy was written (between 90 and 140 according to the majority of scholars) all of the 3 Synoptic Gospels would have been written and possibly John's Gospel, as well as all of Paul's acknowledged epistles (as opposed to those that scholars regard as pseudoeponymous), so I'm not sure that your comment about the term only referring to the OT is true.

As for why 'so many scriptures (are) left out of the Bible', there are a number of reasons  Whilst the Canon of the New Testament wasn't finalised until the 7th century, it was largely finalised as early as the early 4th century, and early church fathers seemed to feel that authorship pre-150 AD was the cut-off point.  If you look at Bart Ehrman's book 'Lost Christianities' you will find that the majority of the material he deals with in the book date from the 3rd century on.  If you read some of the other material you will find that it says much the same as the earlier material that is included in the Canon and, understandably, the early church fathers probably decided that - if there were two or more documents that said the same thing - it would be best to go with the earliest.

[Walter]

Hope,
I find it sad that you have wasted so much time and effort in your life learning this nonsense. Just imagine what worthwhile stuff you could have studied in the same time.

[Hope]

Hope,
I find it sad that you have wasted so much time and effort in your life learning this nonsense. Just imagine what worthwhile stuff you could have studied in the same time.

Oh, don't worry, Walter; it was often as I was studying other stuff - such as Applied Linguistics, education, politics, geology, ornithology, and a whole host of other stuff, that what you call 'nonsense' became so relevant to me.  In other words, without said 'nonsense', I wouldn't have studied as much as I have.

[Walter]

Oh, don't worry, Walter; it was often as I was studying other stuff - such as Applied Linguistics, education, politics, geology, ornithology, and a whole host of other stuff, that what you call 'nonsense' became so relevant to me.  In other words, without said 'nonsense', I wouldn't have studied as much as I have.

do your studies in geology conflict with you beliefs, Hope?

[Owlswing]

Most collections are edited down Khatru for reasons of relevance.

In all the documents which didn't make it though there are documents referring to jesus as a mere prophet, a false prophet, a specially created superhuman, even some kind of Holy Hologram but funnily none as far as I know which would resemble anything circulating in the wild and wacky world of today's antitheism.

Like Modern Pagans you guys are ,well, a modern phenomenon.

If you are going to post, please, at least, get your terminology correct.

Pagans pre-date Christianinty by thousands of years.

Modern Pagans do not exist.

There are two kinds of Pagans around now; Neo-pagans (neo = new (not Modern)) who take what is known of early paganism, the deities and their attributes and the powers of nature that the deities controlled and used and create their rituals around that knowledge; Reconstrutionist Pagans who go to great lengths to try and re-create exactly the rites and rituals of the ancients.

Both, in their way, modern (small 'm'), timewise, modern but the beliefs, all of are older than yours.

[Walter]

Both, in their way, modern (small 'm'), timewise, modern but the beliefs, all of are older than yours.

and my dad is bigger than your dad.

[Owlswing]

and my dad is bigger than your dad.

What?

[Dicky Underpants]

2 Timothy claims that scriptures are "God-breathed".  Obviously he was referring to OT scriptures and not the NT

If all scriptures are "God-breathed" (whatever that's supposed to mean) then why are so many scriptures left out of the Bible?

Depends a lot on how you translate that passage. Traditionally, the Christian translators have chosen the biased option of translating 'graphe' as "scripture" -with its implication of 'holy writing', though in fact both words could just as well be translated as "writing".

That would give us "all writing inspired by God". Okay, how do you determine what writing was and is inspired by God?
The glib answer is "what got into the present day Bible" - except a lot of what's in modern Bibles wasn't always there earlier in history. As for restricting "writing inspired by God" to what is now the Old Testament - well what we know as the OT depends on the post-A.D. Masoretic Text, which took quite a while to exist in such a form. The Dead Sea Scrolls tell us that there were a number of versions of the OT available, each version indicating different lines of development.
Even in the earliest versions of the NT we see two synoptic evangelists responding to the earlier text of Mark, and deliberately changing it, because the earlier text does not accord with their idea of Jesus. A typical example of this is Mark stating that "Jesus was angry"*. Matthew and Luke obviously didn't like the implication of this**.

*Mark 1:41
**Nor did many translators. The NIV is honest enough to translate this "Jesus was indignant", though early texts prefer to skew the Greek to mean "Jesus was moved by pity". Since Jesus has just been asked by a leper to be cured, it's easy to see why from the earliest times the text has caused translators and commentators a degree of confusion. After all, Jesus has just informed the assembled crowds, via a text from Isaiah, that he has come to "heal the sick" and all kinds of other wonderful things.

[Hope]

Even in the earliest versions of the NT we see two synoptic evangelists responding to the earlier text of Mark, and deliberately changing it, because the earlier text does not accord with their idea of Jesus. A typical example of this is Mark stating that "Jesus was angry"*. Matthew and Luke obviously didn't like the implication of this**.

*Mark 1:41
**Nor did many translators. The NIV is honest enough to translate this "Jesus was indignant", though early texts prefer to skew the Greek to mean "Jesus was moved by pity". Since Jesus has just been asked by a leper to be cured, it's easy to see why from the earliest times the text has caused translators and commentators a degree of confusion. After all, Jesus has just informed the assembled crowds, via a text from Isaiah, that he has come to "heal the sick" and all kinds of other wonderful things.

Perhaps you can provide the Greek phrase that you believe means 'Jesus was angry' in Mark 1, Dicky.

[Owlswing]

Depends a lot on how you translate that passage. Traditionally, the Christian translators have chosen the biased option of translating 'graphe' as "scripture" -with its implication of 'holy writing', though in fact both words could just as well be translated as "writing".

That would give us "all writing inspired by God". Okay, how do you determine what writing was and is inspired by God?
The glib answer is "what got into the present day Bible" - except a lot of what's in modern Bibles wasn't always there earlier in history. As for restricting "writing inspired by God" to what is now the Old Testament - well what we know as the OT depends on the post-A.D. Masoretic Text, which took quite a while to exist in such a form. The Dead Sea Scrolls tell us that there were a number of versions of the OT available, each version indicating different lines of development.
Even in the earliest versions of the NT we see two synoptic evangelists responding to the earlier text of Mark, and deliberately changing it, because the earlier text does not accord with their idea of Jesus. A typical example of this is Mark stating that "Jesus was angry"*. Matthew and Luke obviously didn't like the implication of this**.

*Mark 1:41
**Nor did many translators. The NIV is honest enough to translate this "Jesus was indignant", though early texts prefer to skew the Greek to mean "Jesus was moved by pity". Since Jesus has just been asked by a leper to be cured, it's easy to see why from the earliest times the text has caused translators and commentators a degree of confusion. After all, Jesus has just informed the assembled crowds, via a text from Isaiah, that he has come to "heal the sick" and all kinds of other wonderful things.

The words that were translated or the real meanings of those words - the ultimate cop-out used by Christians when their interpretation of the biblical contents is challenged.

Quote - Oh, that is open to interpretation, the words meant something else then! - Unquote

Yeah maybe - I wonder how theologians will transate "total and utter bollocks" when applied to Christian scripture in the future?

[Hope]

The words that were translated or the real meanings of those words - the ultimate cop-out used by Christians when their interpretation of the biblical contents is challenged.

Well, the first thing I'd want to know is what Dicky believes/understands to be the word(s) in the original Greek, and then I'd want to know how that word or words would have been used in everyday language, as well as how it would have been used in any special usage - such as legal or technical language.

Quote - Oh, that is open to interpretation, the words meant something else then! - Unquote

Unfortunately, even in our own times language usage has changed the meaning of words or added to their meaning, Owly. For instance, take 'gay' or 'wicked'.  It isn't only religious people who make such comments.

Yeah maybe - I wonder how theologians will transate "total and utter bollocks" when applied to Christian scripture in the future?

Something like 'Owlswing'?

[Owlswing]

Something like 'Owlswing'?

Just as "hope" used to mean "a feeling of expectation and desire for something to happen".

Now it means "Oh, damn! It's happened!"

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Hope,
I find it sad that you have wasted so much time and effort in your life learning this nonsense.

Really? Then please present your proof.

Just imagine what worthwhile stuff you could have studied in the same time.

Worthwhile stuff like your proof perhaps, or can I only imagine what that will be like? 

[Owlswing]

Really? Then please present your proof.

No imagination will be necessary if I can come back and read your proof.....?

Your God is supposed to be a person, yet no-one in over 2,000 years has ever seen him.

Every other person who has ever lived had been seen by at least one other person.

Thus there is physical proof that each and every one of those other people has existed; contrary to your God which no-one has ever seen.

The burden of proof therefore is on you not us!

But please don't bother to try - your fellow Christians have been dodging this challenge all the way back to the old Beeb R and E forum, so most on here have heard all the excuses, prevarications, and fallacious arguments a hundred times before. Both your question and lack of an answer to my question have rendered such conversations about three-hundred miles west of boring to the point of causing suicides so don't bother.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

But please don't bother to try - your fellow Christians have been dodging this challenge all the way back to the old Beeb R and E forum, so most on here have heard all the excuses, prevarications, and fallacious arguments a hundred times before. Both your question and lack of an answer to my question have rendered such conversations about three-hundred miles west of boring to the point of causing suicides so don't bother.

Which is interesting because, despite what you say, there are a numerous amount of threads where the posts of Christians are challenged. I would have expected this forum to be then full of Christians discussing all sort of theological issues, but that is not the case.

Tomorrow is another day. I wonder how many challenges to what Hope, Sassy, Vlad, or other Christians will be challenged. My guess will be that the answer is not zero.

You and some others are so sure that you are right and religious believers are wrong. It must really get to you that you can't prove it!

[Gordon]

You and some others are so sure that you are right and religious believers are wrong. It must really get to you that you can't prove it!

Some of aren't naive enough to bandy about terms like 'prove' as you seem happy to do: but of course you won't understand this point but no doubt you'll lumber on regardless.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Some of aren't naive enough to bandy about terms like 'prove' as you seem happy to do: but of course you won't understand this point but no doubt you'll lumber on regardless.

Then on what is the confidence based that allows some to be so sure that they are right and religious believers are wrong?

[SusanDoris]

Owlswing #19

Nice post!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Owlswing #19

Nice post!

SusanDoris: On what is the confidence based that allows you to be so sure that you are right and religious believers are wrong?