literal or not

-Removed-

Thank you. I am a religionist and I am willing to admit that my opinions may be wrong.

-Removed-

You seem to enjoy reminding yourself of an offense that you hold on to with considerable delight. Haven't you licked your wounds enough on this yet?

Will you take that offense (grudge) with you to the grave ?
You know a big sinner like you has been forgiven by Jesus very very much.

And the "weirdo" ideas you seem refer to, as far as I can see, are simply my quotations of teachings put forth by the Bible.

Do you mean there are "weirdo" ideas coming out of the mouth of the Son of God ? So be it.

"And they shall go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." (Matt. 25:46)

This is not to me a "weirdo" idea. This is Christ speaking the oracles of God.
It may be dreadful. But it is what I am sure He said.

And previous to this alledged "weirdo" idea He explained what the "eternal punishment" was in verse 41 -

"Then He will say also to those on the left, Go away from Me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire ..." (v.41)

What is "weirdo" is the many inadequate excuses you offered for not wanting to believe Jesus meant what He said. Or it is "weirdo" that you argue that He didn't say it but rather He only said things which you approve of as agreeing with your sentiments. And the other offensive things written in the Greek New Testament should not be there as part of the canon of inspired Scripture.

That's a bit "weirdo" to me.

Originally posted by sonship
That's exactly what you want.
And your reasonings sound like a hand full of stupid excuses.

No, if I wanted that I'd have asked for it. What I would like to know, is how do you - well, not you actually, I was talking to josephw I think but it's an open forum so you're opinion is welcome too - justify this idea that the bible is 'inspired by god'? How do you justify dismissing other scripture? I just don't understand it. To an open-minded non-christian, this veneration, nay worship even, of a collection of stories looks pretty crazy. If that seems like a 'hand full of stupid excuses' to you, I reckon you must have comprehension issues.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat

No, if I wanted that I'd have asked for it. What I would like to know, is how do you - well, not you actually, I was talking to josephw I think but it's an open forum so you're opinion is welcome too - justify this idea that the bible is 'inspired by god'? How do you justify dismissing other scripture? I just don't understand it. To an open-minded non-christian, this veneration, nay worship even, of a collection of stories looks pretty crazy. If that seems like a 'hand full of stupid excuses' to you, I reckon you must have comprehension issues.

Give me your strongest known case of confusion on this matter.
Don't save your strongest case for latter. Provide it up front.
And on a specific incident, I'll suggest how its probably best to consider that particular passage.

If you do promise to come asking me as an "open-minded non-christian" I'll retract my comment about your "stupid excuses."

So give me your most striking problematic passage.
And don't wait for someone else to furnish one for you.

Originally posted by sonship
[b Give me your strongest known case of confusion on this matter.
Don't save your strongest case for latter. Provide it up front.
And on a specific incident, I'll suggest how its probably best to consider that particular passage.

If you do promise to come asking me as an "open-minded non-christian" I'll retract my comment about your "stupid ex ...[text shortened]... most striking problematic passage.
And don't wait for someone else to furnish one for you.[/b]

He could stick a pin in the OT or go for Matthew 26:26 or John 6:54.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] No, if I wanted that I'd have asked for it. What I would like to know, is how do you - well, not you actually, I was talking to josephw I think but it's an open forum so you're opinion is welcome too - justify this idea that the bible is 'inspired by god'? How do you justify dismissing other scripture? I just don't understand it. To an open-minded no ...[text shortened]... most striking problematic passage.
And don't wait for someone else to furnish one for you.

Firstly, let me reassure you that I am indeed open-minded and non-christian. I do not deny the possibility of a god or gods existing. I have studied the bible from the point of view of an archaeologist and a student of ancient history, and fully accept it's value as source material in this regard. Christians, however, are able to accept what seems to me to be a wholly unwarranted position that the material within the bible is in some way special and distinct from other ancient writings, and that close examination thereof gives some sort of 'real' insight into the nature of reality. This doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable position to take. Given this mismatch in how we regard this material, I really can't see much point in discussing the content thereof. Hence my question, how do you justify the idea that biblical scripture is divinely inspired?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat

Firstly, let me reassure you that I am indeed open-minded and non-christian. I do not deny the possibility of a god or gods existing. I have studied the bible from the point of view of an archaeologist and a student of ancient history, and fully accept it's value as source material in this regard.

It is interesting how many thousands of details there are about locations, landmarks, people (many confirmed by outside sources to the Bible).

To read the landmarks indicating the boundaries of the Good Land apportioned out by Joshua indicates someone's precise accounting to geographic details. Hundreds of cities are mentioned throughout the OT. Thousands of names of people like you and I.

You say you do not deny the possibility of god or gods existing. From your standpoint I would wonder why writers (many of whom given to such precise historical data) would at the same time be sloppy, deluded, or lying about theological data simultaneously.

Doesn't it seem a bit odd that someone whose intelligence could convey so much technical minutia about the structure of the tabernacle and its furnishings could simultaneously be totally given to erroneous delusions about the dealings of this (admittedly "possible" ) Yahweh ?

You're suggesting we see studious detail to genealogical and geographic specifics conveyed by the same reporters who were simultaneously totally intoxicated with fanciful fictitious or worse, malicious fabrication of false testimony about God.

How much "faith" does it require of me to adopt wholesale this schizophrenic view of the writers of the Bible? You're asking a lot.
Are you sure there is not something else going on here in your skepticism?

Maybe you're not skeptical enough. Maybe you should push your skepticism a bit further and be skeptical of your viewpoint. Its kind of like suggesting that the authors of the Windows Operating System were also given over to mass hallucinations about armies of leprechauns.

Christians, however, are able to accept what seems to me to be a wholly unwarranted position that the material within the bible is in some way special and distinct from other ancient writings, and that close examination thereof gives some sort of 'real' insight into the nature of reality.

Here again, there is a case for 'real' insight be provided into the stuff of geography and other practical details. (Not that we can confirm every matter today). Yet suddenly no insight into the writer's testimony as to their dealings with God are to be taken seriously.

When I read Joshua chapters 12 through 19 about the allotment of the land of Canaan to the twelve tribes in such exhaustive geographic detail, I cannot so easily shift gears and decide that delusional fabrication is being what this God did. This is compounded when much of the testimony is very potentially embarrassing to any alleged self aggrandizing national propaganda.

Other factors also prompt me to be skeptical of your skepticism.

This doesn't seem to me to be a reasonable position to take.

I don't think your schizophrenic conspiracy theory is more reasonable.

Given this mismatch in how we regard this material, I really can't see much point in discussing the content thereof. Hence my question, how do you justify the idea that biblical scripture is divinely inspired?

In my case, when I met Jesus in the privacy of my conversion experience, I reluctantly began to read the New Testament. Good News For Modern Man was popular in those days. And only after delving into some philosophical theological books which were over my head, did the Holy Spirit say to me "Why don't you read the Bible?"

I had humbled myself to call on Jesus to save me. So I guess I could humble myself to read that Bible. Well gradually the integrity of this central figure Jesus Christ so persuaded me that He could be trusted, that I opened up, by degrees, to the entire Bible.

By a process I got convinced that I was indeed dealing with a book from God. It started with me, by reading a paraphrase English friendly Good News For Modern Man with getting to know my Lord Jesus Christ in my personal life.

I think I count some of this persuasive power of the whole Bible with my willingness to be changed by God. When that still small voice in my conscience said "Why don't you read the Bible?" I could have dismissed that with a huff. I could have thought that was just some idle thought from my own soul. I could have said "No way am I going to read that crazy book."

Rather I thought, "Well, I did humble myself to call out to Jesus to help me. I guess I can also humble myself to read this book."

I mean I came reading with a willingness for God to change some of my views, to change me in fact. I think I have to pinpoint that juncture in my life as the beginning of the convincing process - ie. "This book is an authoritative communication from the one true God to mankind."

Now I am so persuaded, it requires more "faith" to believe the "mishmash" conspiracy theory than to just believe what the Bible says about itself.

Originally posted by sonship
I think I have to pinpoint that juncture in my life as the beginning of the convincing process - ie. "This book is an authoritative communication from the one true God to mankind."

According to your ideology what are your God figure's plans for those who, unlike you, do not believe the Bible is "an authoritative communication from the one true God to mankind"?

Originally posted by sonship

Firstly, let me reassure you that I am indeed open-minded and non-christian. I do not deny the possibility of a god or gods existing. I have studied the bible from the point of view of an archaeologist and a student of ancient history, and fully accept it's value as source material in this regard.

It is interesting how many thousands of ...[text shortened]... believe the "mishmash" conspiracy theory than to just believe what the Bible says about itself.

I hope you'll forgive me for not attempting to counter your bewilderingly extensive post point-by-point, but I don't think exchanging walls of text is a fruitful way to discuss these things. Consider this though; Homer's works also reflect real people, places and things. Does this mean you believe he blinded a cycloptic giant and was held prisoner by a shapeshifting witch? And how are you able to reject the Greek (and by extension Roman) pantheon, details of which including origins and familial relationships abound in many different ancient writings which also reflect real people, places and objects?

I wrote:

You say you do not deny the possibility of god or gods existing. From your standpoint I would wonder why writers (many of whom given to such precise historical data) would at the same time be sloppy, deluded, or lying about theological data simultaneously.

Let's take a peek -

Joshua 13:1-7

Now Joshua was old and advanced in age: and Jehovah said to him, You are old and advanced in age, and very much of the land remains to be possessed. (v.1)

This is the land that remains: all the regions of the Philistines and all that of the Gershurites, (v.2)

From the Shihor, which is before Egypt, unto the border of Ekron on the north (this is considered to be Canaanite). with five lords of the Philistines: the Gazite and the Ashdodite, the Ashkelonite, the Gittite, and the Ekronite; and that of the Avvim. (v.3)

In the south; all the land of the Canaanites, and Mearah, which belongs to the Sidonians, unto Aphek at the border of the Amorites; (v.4)

And the land of the Gebalites and all Lebanon toward the rising of the sun, from Baal-gad under Mount Hermon to the entrance of Hamath. (v.5)

All the inhabitants of the hill country from Lebanon to Misrephoth-maim, all the Sidonians. I Myself will drive them out before the children of Israel, nevertheless allot it to Israel as an inheritance as I have commanded you. (v.6)

And now [edited] divide this land as an inheritance to the nine tribes and the half tribe of Manasseh. (v. 7)

And the OT can go on like this, page after page after page after page ...

What happened to "Oh, it thundered in the sky. That must be a god up there. THE END. " ?

Originally posted by sonship
I would wonder why writers (many of whom given to such precise historical data) would at the same time be sloppy, deluded, or lying about theological data simultaneously.

I don't think it's necessary to describe people who are superstitious and who write about it as being "sloppy, deluded, or lying" just as there is no reason to take the "theological data" based on their superstitions and mythology as being true. The fact that you personally accept (and are convinced that) their "theological data" is "true", and not "deluded", is only evidence of what your personal beliefs happen to be, and is not evidence of there being "truth" in their writing about the supernatural things they perceived.

Originally posted by sonship
I wrote:

You say you do not deny the possibility of god or gods existing. From your standpoint I would wonder why writers (many of whom given to such precise historical data) would at the same time be sloppy, deluded, or lying about theological data simultaneously.

Let's take a peek -

[quote]
[b]Joshua 13:1-7

Now Joshua ...[text shortened]... ...

What happened to "Oh, it thundered in the sky. That must be a god up there. THE END. " ?[/b]

I'll grant you the bible contains useful and interesting geopolitical data. I'm trying hard to be respectful towards your faith, but it seems rather fatuous to me to jump from that to accepting the rest of the text as a genuine reflection of reality. Have you read Oedipus Judaicus by Sir William Drummond?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
I'll grant you the bible contains useful and interesting geopolitical data. I'm trying hard to be respectful towards your faith, but it seems rather fatuous to me to jump from that to accepting the rest of the text as a genuine reflection of reality. Have you read Oedipus Judaicus by Sir William Drummond?

I'll grant you the bible contains useful and interesting geopolitical data. I'm trying hard to be respectful towards your faith, but it seems rather fatuous to me to jump from that to accepting the rest of the text as a genuine reflection of reality. Have you read Oedipus Judaicus by Sir William Drummond?

To reiterate, it was a gradual process for me to trust the whole Bible.

Whether you try hard to be respectful or don't try hard to be respectful, through a gradual process of going from seeing Christ's saving work in my life to trusting His references to the rest of Scripture, I got persuaded that the Bible was as it speaks about itself.

Now you say "Maybe god or gods are possible." Let's not close the door completely. After all god or gods MAY come in handy some time. Fine.

Now could God not convey a book of divine character to man? Is your respectful allowance of god or gods automatically ruling out COMPETENCY to communicate ? Does your leeway for possible deity come attached with an assumption of God's inability to arrange to have an authoritative writing in human language expressing Himself ?


I have not read Oepidus Judaicus. I have not read many things.

Here's another point. You know some intellectuals will be skeptical because one believing in Christ as Son of God has not done homework to master 1001 OTHER belief systems up front so as to make an informed comparison.

Sure, I cannot say I have exhaustive knowledge of the scriptures, tales, sacred writings, traditions of a 1001 other beliefs to the Christian Gospel. "Have you read ________ ?" could be asked of me concerning millions of books.

I am not adverse to reading other books. I have read some other books. You may explain why you mention William Drummond's book if you wish.

Has that book influenced your attitude about the Bible ?
You can tell me how if you wish.

There are different schools of thought about what it means to say the Bible is Inspired. Does this mean it was dictated like a dictaphone? What is inspired? Is the teaching inspired or everything that happened in it inspired?
Is there a difference between illumination and inspiration?

What was inspired - the original or the copies? How do we consider errors in the thousands of copies of the Greek New Testament? Typos did apparently creep in to the many copies.

How do we think of an inspired authoritative Scripture with typos in the many thousands of copies?

What typos are significant? What errors in transmition are of little to no consequence to major doctrinal themes?

How do textural critics use their sciences to figure out what was likely the original among a collection of copy mistakes?

You seem to be asking to "jump" into a full fledge dedication to something which takes some study to consider from varied angles. I got help on the development of the OT and NT canon from A General Introduction to the Bible by Gielser and Nix. Many issues related to Inspiration, transmission, canocity, apocryphal, and pseudopigraphical issues surrounding the compilation of the Bible as discussed.

If your return to the theme of you being "respectful" is a veiled attempt to suggest I am a buffoon to trust in Jesus Christ as Son of God and the Bible as God's word, its not accomplishing that subtlety.

I am also attempting to be respectful to you and give you a benefit of a doubt. I don't think in a couple of posts I can cause you to come the way I did, which was a long and gradual process of the Scripture winning my trust.

And you haven't said too much about my skepticism of your skepticism. We are not dealing with "Once Upon A Time In a Far Off Land, there was this god ...".

From Genesis to Revelation we have 40 authors of 66 books displaying an uncanny unity of theme with some prophetic matters unusual enough to cause skeptics to insist that they HAD to have been written AFTER the fact - IE. Daniel.

Is Oedipus Judaicus going to give me more of God ?
Or is it good for giving me reasons to doubt my experience with God ?
I am not adverse to looking into the books of unbelievers.
But I do prioritize my time.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat

I hope you'll forgive me for not attempting to counter your bewilderingly extensive post point-by-point, but I don't think exchanging walls of text is a fruitful way to discuss these things. Consider this though; Homer's works also reflect real people, places and things. Does this mean you believe he blinded a cycloptic giant and was held prisoner by a shapeshifting witch? And how are you able to reject the Greek (and by extension Roman) pantheon, details of which including origins and familial relationships abound in many different ancient writings which also reflect real people, places and objects?

I did not see this post before.

Now, Hmmm, walls of text are out. Won't read "walls of text".

Okay, how can I make this concise then?
Zues I never met. Jesus I met.

Short enough for ya?

Oh, I just have to write a little more.
Yes, there are other books with plenty of detail.

The Odyssey and the Iliad pose absolutely no concern to my ego being on the throne. But the sayings of Jesus give me some real concern. So I could have a vested interest in reasoning that the New Testament = Odyssey in order to minimalize this pesky concern Jesus has for me.

Hector and Ulysses ? They don't bother me.

Originally posted by sonship

I'll grant you the bible contains useful and interesting geopolitical data. I'm trying hard to be respectful towards your faith, but it seems rather fatuous to me to jump from that to accepting the rest of the text as a genuine reflection of reality. Have you read Oedipus Judaicus by Sir William Drummond?

To reiterate, it was a gradual ...[text shortened]... ?
I am not adverse to looking into the books of unbelievers.
But I do prioritize my time.

I don't agree that the 66 books from 40 authors reflect an uncanny unity, and this despite the fact that were actively selected by men who intended to achieve this very end.

Drummond's work, produced in the early 19th century, provides a very different interpretation of the OT. I would say that any serious OT scholar should be familiar with this book, and any christian who feels that the OT has relevance to their faith should at least be aware of the main theme.

For me, Oedipus Judaicus alone is enough to completely relegate the OT from relevance in this discussion, although frankly I don't find much if anything to recommend it (the OT) above other ancient writings anyway.

The NT is a different discussion. I am similarly sceptical regarding the miraculous events therein detailed, but accept that it's not so easily dismissed wholesale as the OT. Regardless, I still find the idea of 'divinely inspired' scripture somewhat ridiculous, and I apologise if you find that offensive, it is not intended to be so. Why would an omnipotent god resort to such a shoddy method of disseminating his message? A meditative or reflective source to enlightenment would surely make more sense and be more acceptable to more people. I would be perfectly willing to consider the possibility that people who had achieved this sort of enlightenment might then write about it with the intention of passing on that message. I rather doubt dogmatic insistence of the relevance of scripture will ever have much currency with rational, educated non-theists however.