The Bible is not the Word of God or is it?

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/emmett_fields/word_of_god_debate.html

Interesting article.

 

The opening and closing of Day 1 Part 1 is the best, IMO.

Very good read, thanks for posting. =)

 

He lost my respect at:

Many have found God. Those who foolishly believe that "wisdom" has not yet found God are confusing their own ignorance of God with wisdom.

Here's another bit of this man's "wisdom":

Holding a book responsible for the actions of men is (you figure it out after reading the next part of my statement).

Were there wars before the bible? Were there wars in places were the bible's teachings are not prevelant?

Here is another thing to consider: A gun can be used to protect and it can be used for criminal action. Why look at the bible differently? In the hands of a fool it can cause "evil", in the hands of the wise it can cause "good".

This guy also says:

Are and were there wars over things other than religious opinion?

Oil? Money? Power? Land? Women?

This guy makes stupid blanket statements. I've seen enough people like him on this message board to realise he has no fucking clue- he's caught up in his hatred of religion, which he blames for all of his social problems (like some people we know). What a fucking moron.

 

All good points, Kharakov.

Although, the author of that debate speech also made many good points -- I was especially impressed by the points he made about how every God that people have found, has taken after the people who found him -- teaching how to build boats, and tailoring clothes, et cetera.

It is not a far stretch to say this, even to a Christian, because there are many so-acclaimed "gods" out there which all fit this description.

There are some things I don't like about what the author said or the way he put things, but ... there are still some very valid points in there (and very valid counter-points that have yet to be made, I'm sure).

 

The point was the Bible is not word of god and the author made many good points to prove so. On the other hand he said some things, left some things out and presented things in a certain ways that I disagree with. But, overall he did a good job defending his main argument the Bible is not the word of god. Many Christians claim the bible is the word of god but the Bible is like any other book.
He made the founding fathers look like prefect men, which they were not.

 

"Perhaps" he missed the point- that God teaches us through the environment that God creates us in. If God creates us in a seafaring culture we are taught with seafaring metaphores, and of course this means God is a fucking swashbuckler....

I looked at a few selections of his word(s), and found all wanting. Perhaps there are some half truths hidden in his words, but I doubt it. He was a fool, through and though (at the time he wrote the article).

 

Name one. Quote it (cut and paste).

 

I won't cut and paste because it's long and drawn out, but he points out a contradiction in both the Old and New Testaments, exposing how the Bible cannot be perfect (and thus cannot be the perfect, infallible Word of God) because it cannot be perfectly understood nor perfectly interpreted, and because some parts are in conflict with eachother.

Of course, there is always the argument that the King James Version of the Bible, isn't exactly the best version ... a study by historians and linguists which worked to translate the original Aramaic text found that some 87% of the statements in the KJV differred in some way from the actual, original meanings found in the Aramaic which are now better understood and more accurately translated than they were when King James ordered its translation.

 

This doesn't even halfway demonstrate that the bible is not the "perfect, infallible Word of God."

The only thing that is required for the bible to be "the perfect, infallible Word of God" is: the bible must be used by God to accomplish that which God has designed the bible to do.

Say it is designed to influence men, to stir their thoughts and passions, to direct them in a certain way. It doesn't have to be completely truthful (and/or non contradictory) to do so. Say it is designed to spiritually educate man, describing different emotional/spiritual states man might find himself in- (Ecclesiastes, for instance, or a contrasting (opposite?) one such as "Song of Songs"- which definitely has a positive note). This doesn't mean that Solomon's depressed ravings in Ecclesiastes are completely true, this book of the bible is only used to show us that others go through thought processes that are similar to our own. Have you ever been through existencial despair?

Anyway, as long as the bible perfectly accomplishes that which God has set out to do (with the bible), it can be called "the perfect, infallible Word of God" even if it does not appear to be entirely coherant to those who do not (fully) understand the bible's purpose.