Is the Bible accurately God's Word?

[lordstar]

lordstar

Nebluance

I also think truth is in searching for the meaning behind the words and not the words themselves

I also don't think it is up to any of us to decide for anyone else what is truth and what is not

and for those who believe it is true or at least true enough and for those who don't...their own beliefs are true or at least true enough

after all who are we to say who is right and who wrong?

Nebluance

The second statement is true; everyone ultimately does make their own decisions, no matter we may advise them (which is quite acceptable for us to do in a sincere spirit).

If that is the conclusion you have made then perhaps it is true enough for you

Nebluance

Contradictary concepts cannot both be valid. One may be more helpful for one person, another for another person, but that does not make both of them true. If I believe that I am the President of the United States, that does not make it true.

contradictary concepts can both be valid
thats critical thinking 101 dude
very basic stuff
and way off topic
if you want we can discuss this topic in another thread

Nebluance

As for the fourth statement rhetorical question, you are right in that we have no right to judge what is right and what is wrong. God, however, does. Thus, we can say that murder is wrong, that we are to love God and other people, and many other statements of 'judgement'. We are simply not allowed to make the judgement. When something questionable comes up that is not addressed specifically and clearly in the Bible, then it is up to every man's own conscience, although the Bible does asks us to be sensitive to each other in such cases.

again
no, no I am not right
right and wrong are only what we diffine

so maybe I am right...maybe I am wrong
or maybe the true answer is that right and wrong do not exist in absolute form

so sure we can say murder is wrong
doesn't mean it is
doesn't mean it isn't
but if you believe murder is wrong then at least the statment is true enough for you

and for the record
if you are going to use something that is not fact as fact
please establish it as a given before use  

[Vasilius Konstantinos]

There exists something which Postmodernists cannot explain and has a weak argument against that I hold to, among everyone holds to whether they admit to it or not, and that is a Moral Absolute.

This Moral Absolute is the preservation of life and a mutual respect for each other and each other's property. Among other things this Moral Absolute is one of the benign evidences that Moral Truths exist as well as Moral Dogmas, like a Creator who instilled this absolute within us, which is argued but nonetheless is there.

If you have any notion to hurt someone physically or by defacing them in some manner, but feel compelled not to because of some innate feeling of wrong, not by law but by nature, then you can see it in effect.

The worst things people have done in history is deface and murder, which is why those words are harsh on the tongue and the senses.  

[Nebulance]

Wow, here it comes. wink

lordstar

Nebluance

The second statement is true; everyone ultimately does make their own decisions, no matter we may advise them (which is quite acceptable for us to do in a sincere spirit).

If that is the conclusion you have made then perhaps it is true enough for you

Nebluance

Contradictary concepts cannot both be valid. One may be more helpful for one person, another for another person, but that does not make both of them true. If I believe that I am the President of the United States, that does not make it true.

contradictary concepts can both be valid
thats critical thinking 101 dude
very basic stuff
and way off topic
if you want we can discuss this topic in another thread

Nebluance

As for the fourth statement rhetorical question, you are right in that we have no right to judge what is right and what is wrong. God, however, does. Thus, we can say that murder is wrong, that we are to love God and other people, and many other statements of 'judgement'. We are simply not allowed to make the judgement. When something questionable comes up that is not addressed specifically and clearly in the Bible, then it is up to every man's own conscience, although the Bible does asks us to be sensitive to each other in such cases.

again
no, no I am not right
right and wrong are only what we diffine

so maybe I am right...maybe I am wrong
or maybe the true answer is that right and wrong do not exist in absolute form

so sure we can say murder is wrong
doesn't mean it is
doesn't mean it isn't
but if you believe murder is wrong then at least the statment is true enough for you

and for the record
if you are going to use something that is not fact as fact
please establish it as a given before use

OK, lordstar:

I'll back down on one point-- obviously people can be pressured or brainwashed into a decision or belief-- and I should have noted that.


Now, I apologize for not taking 'critical thinking 101' with all of its 'very basic stuff'. I think maybe the textbook you memorized in that course needed to be rewritten, though.

lordstar

contradictary concepts can both be valid

NOT if you are defining 'valid' as meaning 'true'. This IS very basic stuff, something that we shouldn't have to discuss here, but which is necessary to have any kind of debate, so let me explain it to you.

SCREW moral absolutes. I don't need to get into a philosophical debate to demonstrate this point. Take scientific facts instead. I really don't care if you don't believe your body needs oxygen to survive, it's true anyway, and you can go (literally) jump in a lake if you don't believe me. The truth of it does not vary from person to person because there is a FACTUAL physical reality.

Likewise, if there is indeed a spiritual reality of any sort, the nature of that reality will form basic facts, the truth of which will not be altered by any person's 'beliefs'. Unless you believe that the spiritual reality seamlessly adapts to our wishes (and obviously we can't make it directly effect physical reality), then there are spiritual truths non-dependent on a person's beliefs. If you do belief spiritual reality somehow selectively adapts to our beliefs, than you have just believed in an absolute fact right there-- your 'logic' is self-defeating

Logic and critical thinking are meaningless concepts if there is no fact to base them upon. What are you even doing on here if you believe nothing has meaning-- what is it that you are pursuing with this critical thinking of yours?

For all that you post-modernists use the word 'truth' in order to grind all meaning out of it, I would like to see just how you define the word (since you don't like the dictionary's definition), and whether it is not just a circular self-justification in the form of 'whatever a person may believe'.

Of course, you won't respond to most of what I've written, you'll just throw vague insults and spout a bit about how I'm completely wrong (What, 'wrong'? But that's not a valid concept-- wrong has no meaning apart from what we assign it! Wait, 'valid'?...)

lordstar

if you are going to use something that is not fact as fact

What? Fact or not fact? I thought everything depended on our beliefs! What is this absolute validity that you speak of?

And I need to stop now before I get any more angry at the way you butcher a rational discussion.  

[lordstar]

Nebluance

Wow, here it comes. wink

lordstar

Nebluance

The second statement is true; everyone ultimately does make their own decisions, no matter we may advise them (which is quite acceptable for us to do in a sincere spirit).

If that is the conclusion you have made then perhaps it is true enough for you

Nebluance

Contradictary concepts cannot both be valid. One may be more helpful for one person, another for another person, but that does not make both of them true. If I believe that I am the President of the United States, that does not make it true.

contradictary concepts can both be valid
thats critical thinking 101 dude
very basic stuff
and way off topic
if you want we can discuss this topic in another thread

Nebluance

As for the fourth statement rhetorical question, you are right in that we have no right to judge what is right and what is wrong. God, however, does. Thus, we can say that murder is wrong, that we are to love God and other people, and many other statements of 'judgement'. We are simply not allowed to make the judgement. When something questionable comes up that is not addressed specifically and clearly in the Bible, then it is up to every man's own conscience, although the Bible does asks us to be sensitive to each other in such cases.

again
no, no I am not right
right and wrong are only what we diffine

so maybe I am right...maybe I am wrong
or maybe the true answer is that right and wrong do not exist in absolute form

so sure we can say murder is wrong
doesn't mean it is
doesn't mean it isn't
but if you believe murder is wrong then at least the statment is true enough for you

and for the record
if you are going to use something that is not fact as fact
please establish it as a given before use

OK, lordstar:

I'll back down on one point-- obviously people can be pressured or brainwashed into a decision or belief-- and I should have noted that.


Now, I apologize for not taking 'critical thinking 101' with all of its 'very basic stuff'. I think maybe the textbook you memorized in that course needed to be rewritten, though.

lordstar

contradictary concepts can both be valid

NOT if you are defining 'valid' as meaning 'true'. This IS very basic stuff, something that we shouldn't have to discuss here, but which is necessary to have any kind of debate, so let me explain it to you.

SCREW moral absolutes. I don't need to get into a philosophical debate to demonstrate this point. Take scientific facts instead. I really don't care if you don't believe your body needs oxygen to survive, it's true anyway, and you can go (literally) jump in a lake if you don't believe me. The truth of it does not vary from person to person because there is a FACTUAL physical reality.

Likewise, if there is indeed a spiritual reality of any sort, the nature of that reality will form basic facts, the truth of which will not be altered by any person's 'beliefs'. Unless you believe that the spiritual reality seamlessly adapts to our wishes (and obviously we can't make it directly effect physical reality), then there are spiritual truths non-dependent on a person's beliefs. If you do belief spiritual reality somehow selectively adapts to our beliefs, than you have just believed in an absolute fact right there-- your 'logic' is self-defeating

Logic and critical thinking are meaningless concepts if there is no fact to base them upon. What are you even doing on here if you believe nothing has meaning-- what is it that you are pursuing with this critical thinking of yours?

For all that you post-modernists use the word 'truth' in order to grind all meaning out of it, I would like to see just how you define the word (since you don't like the dictionary's definition), and whether it is not just a circular self-justification in the form of 'whatever a person may believe'.

Of course, you won't respond to most of what I've written, you'll just throw vague insults and spout a bit about how I'm completely wrong (What, 'wrong'? But that's not a valid concept-- wrong has no meaning apart from what we assign it! Wait, 'valid'?...)

lordstar

if you are going to use something that is not fact as fact

What? Fact or not fact? I thought everything depended on our beliefs! What is this absolute validity that you speak of?

And I need to stop now before I get any more angry at the way you butcher a rational discussion.

If you had said that you believe the bible as fact that would have been fine, however, you did not establish that given before using it as fact

that was the point I was making
givens must be established in order to define the parameters of discussion

if you had defined the parameters of the discussion I would then have perhaps needed to hold two contradicting truths both true (what you believe and what I believe) for the duration of our conversation...and if I can't do something so simple then nothing will ever come of our discussion.

I tried your O2 experiment and I found that even after evacuating my lunges the best I could I did not need O2 to survive. Now I didn't drive out to a lake and jump in...I used a 5ft deep swimming pool.

Now
I believe at some point I would need air to breath, thus here I am breathing away

someone who does not believe they need air at all would have drown
or rather
that’s what you and I would have seen in the data

but is that truth
or has our truth corrupted the data to show what we think
the world may never know

as for the definition of truth
I was using a dynamic philosophical meaning of truth
and I did so because the word caries more meaning then its definition
the meaning behind the word may not be totally constant from person to person

you however, then tried to interject a ridged description of a highly theoretical concept using a dictionary (I struck it out because it was off topic not that I didn't agree with the definition)

now if you had presented the dictionary definition as a way to look at truth you then would have been adding to the discussion and it would have been fine, however, you presented it as hard fact.

So again if you would like to continue our side conversation I suggest we do so outside of this thread
perhaps there I could answer to the remainder of your points  

[ferret658]

Vasilius Konstantinos

diabolical_ferret658

Karumei

Whoa now, back up diabolical.
The things that are lain upon your heart are not always from God (though I am aware you used the potential 'can', I just want to clarify).

We are human born in sin, therefore, we sin. As such, it is important to weigh the things that come to our hearts with the word of God, asking ourselves whether or not that thing (on our hearts) is God-breathed, like scripture.

Our first and foremost question should be "Is this loving God?" and the second "Is this loving other people?"

Let me try to explain here. And add a fews things to help clarify to others who posted before me.

The Bible is God breathed. God influenced man to write His words. It may have been that Moses was praying one day and God told him the He wanted Moses to do something for Him.

When you pray, you are communicating with God. That's the one way any human has to communicate with Him. God can communicate many different ways, so we don't know how He actually got Moses to write His word.

When I mentioned prayer, what I meant was: like in a prayer walk, you stand outside of a stranger's house and pray over their house. The words flow from you and the gramar and the vocabulary is not your own. That was something God laid on your heart to pray about.

The Bible is also accurately Gods word because it is not only God breathed, it was METICULOUSLY copied by Hebrew scribes. Letter by letter, word by word, punctaution mark by punctuation mark. If even one letter was misspelled on the last page of their bible, they would throw the ENTIRE copy away because that misspelled word was not from God.

Good way to explain the Masorets. Good show.

Out of every existing copy of the original manuscripts, Codex and whatnot, we have found the prepared copies from the original to be 99.7% accurate, where the only differences was a letter switched in a word. This is far better than any other text copied in history, ever. I think that is awesome and says alot about Sacred Scripture- its really Sacred.

Thank you. I guess it does pay off to date the daughter of a pastor who went to Bible College....