Bible Questions?

The bible and war, they just go together so easily

 

Same to you!

 

Yes but I try never to answer my own questions with questions.

 

Thanks!

 

I also have heard this type of reasoning but it is, as you say lacking. For one thing, Yes the Bible does say it's the word of God but that only puts it in line for being such and is by itself not proof that it is.

There many different things that point to the Bible being the Word of God, taken one at a time they can all be said to not absolutely prove the Bible is the word of God but taken as a whole they point to the Bible being exactly what it says it is, the Word of God.

 

In 45 CE
accept for possibly Matthew there were no Christian Scriptures as yet and so the the canon for the new Christian community was the Hebrew Scriptures.

I'd say about 440 B.C.E. with the finish of either Nehemiah or Malachi both were completed about the same time.

Hebrew, since at that time it was the common language of the people and was readily available in that language.

 

So to break from this general circular reasoning trap, what would you say the downside of the bible is?

I've understood the bible to be the inspired word of god. So, seeing as it is inspired, wouldn't that point to human error? That's how I personally see it.

 

Although Koine Greek was wide spread it was not the language of the people in the area of Jerusalem and the original Hebrew texts where what was used in the Synagogues in that day. So I would say that the original Hebrew is what was used mostly but there are places in the Christian Greek Scriptures that appear to be from the Septuagint.

 

I didn't quote anyone directly because several had commented and was trying to more or less synthesize what had been said. Sorry if I seemed to be implying that you said something you didn't.

I do agree that Satan gets a lot more credit for the evil that is done than he deserves, although he deserves a lot. But that does not mean that he doesn't exist and is just the personification of evil.

The Bible plainly states that is is real and that he was the one that tempted Jesus and not something inside of Jesus, if that was the case then Jesus could not have been perfect which the Bible clearly states he was.

 

The Sadducees and Pharisees can hardly be looked as an example and to me would not show the canon had not been finalized. The only thing they agreed on was that Jesus should be put to death and that is hardly a recommendation of their spiritual understanding.

 

Other than it sometimes tells you that somethings you might want to do are not good for you to do, I don't know of any downside to the Bible.

I'm not sure of your point of reasoning here.

But yes the Bible is the Word of God and yes it is infallible and it does say that it is the Word of God, all true but the chain breaks down when you try to use the fact it says it is the Word of God, to prove it is the Word of God. That would mean that any Book that uses the phrase "this book is the word of God" would by default be the Word of God and that is just not true.

 

See, here is my problem. God did not write the bible itself, it is the inspired word of god.

Keyword is inspired here, meaning that humans wrote the bible. When we say the bible is infallible, are we applying something similar to papal-infallibility? People make mistakes and I do not understand why a piece of human-literature is considered infallible.

 

What you think the phrase the "inspired Word of God" means?

I don't believe that inspired means that humans wrote the Bible but that were "told" by God what to write. So we are not talking about human-literature being infallible but God-literature being infallible.

 

Any takers?

 

Okay but first answer this question;


Before arriving in America were the arriving Europians ignorant to the fact that you should not kill your fellow man or rampantly steal from one another?

If so how did they make it so far without self destructing and what significance would any rules put upon them by the new Constitution have on them if it was already self evident?

 

They were not ignorant to the fact, because in my opinion not killing your fellow man without provocation is self evident for most humans.

However there is always the exeption so laws must be put in place for the offender.

In addition I don't believe the colonists "wandered" nearly as long as the people who supposedly found delivered wisdom at the foot of Mount Cyanide.

Your turn.

 

I think you may have answered your own questions.

 

Are most of the ten commandment laws self evident, which ones are not?

 

Only the sixth and eighth are "self evident".

The first through third would not be "self evident" to someone like yourself who doesn't believe in God.

The fourth, the Sabbath law might be considered "self evident" since a "day off" seems to appeal to all but at the time, it was probably considered a "new" idea.

The fifth commandment, “Honor your father and your mother,” does not appear to be "self evident" now a days, neither does the seventh, “You must not commit adultery” nor the the ninth, “You must not testify falsely as a witness against your fellowman.”

As for the tenth commandment, it was unique in that it forbade covetousness, that is, wrong desire for the property and possessions, including the wife, belonging to a fellowman. No human lawmakers originated such a law, for, indeed, there would be no way humanly possible of enforcing it.