Bible Under Fire

[Red]

<div class='quotemain'>

Yep. It'll say..."Chap, I gave you a brain to reason with...now why didn't you use it!"

All this to say, it just won't do for you to insinuate that Christians of any category are unreasoning. Faith is not ignorance. It is a willingness to look at some indicators, to believe that God desires to speak to me, and combine that with faith. Blind faith is indeed foolishness, but I doubt anyone could function if they relied soley on 100% verifiable information. Even scientific theories "evolve."

You know, I think that's a real good definition of Biblical, "pistou" faith/trust in God. There are more than enough evidence/indicators that point directly to Him, but at the same time God didn't squash us with evidence to the point of negating our free will, or making faith/trust virtually meaningless.

The flip side of course is that He provided just enough evidence that if rejected, we are justly condemned (Romans 1-3:20). Good thing He is the God who gives righteousness and eternal life as a free gift to those who trust in Him.

[Red]

I’d like to add to this point.

While most Christians conform their understanding of God to the scriptures contained in the “Holy Bible”, which is proper in the correct context, the scriptures actually come from those who are authorized to speak for God, or more specifically, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Or in other words, while most Christians put their faith in a book, including many books written by Christians, true Christians receive revelation from Jesus Christ, sometimes writing those revelations down in books.

And btw, among the many revelations that true Christians can and should receive are revelations from Jesus Christ telling us what is and is not truly “scripture”.

God speaks through whomever He wishes, whenever He wishes. A survey of the Biblical writers will show no particular "authorization." The OT prophets became prophets because God gave them revelations. They did not prophesy because they were authorized as such beforehand.

This particular christian only trusts his life to the Bible. Sure there are good books out there, but they come second.

And btw, the Bible is revelation from Jesus Christ, and I do accept it. Now, why would Jesus have to inform us that the Bible, His own words, had become corrupted when He could have stopped the problem in the first place? I've read the parts in the book of Mormon and the articles of Faith that talk about this.

No, that wouldn't be my Jesus.

[Snow]

While most Christians conform their understanding of God to the scriptures contained in the “Holy Bible”, which is proper in the correct context, the scriptures actually come from those who are authorized to speak for God, or more specifically, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Says who?

Who wrote, oh say, Job? Answer: No body knows.

What evidence is there that God authorized the unknown writer of Job to speak for him? Answer: None.

God himself is silent on the matter. Everything else is a simple matter of faith - that's all.

[Traveler]

A bottom-line "biblical" standard for canon--any writings that would be ADDED to the canon should complement the current standard. Of course, this next point is a difference we have: the new must submit to the old, rather than vice versa.

Nice theory but again I think I have a different point of view - in that this appears to be exactly the argument the Scribes and Pharisees used to reject Jesus (and his Apostles) from the existing cannon. It could also be used in the day of Noah as per “What a flood? That does not complement the current standard.”

The point here is that it is not up to man to determine what is the “Word of G-d”. That is something that should be left to G-d. G-d has a way of speaking - we know that because we have that in what scriptures we do have.

And so we go in a circle - if G-d does not indicate a cannon or if man cannot find that designation I do not believe man should make assumptions. I do not believe that kind of thinking and doctrine complements the current standard. Did not king Saul demonstrate that kind of thinking is unacceptable?

The Traveler

[Traveler]

You say that the present Bible is essentially man's work. Since when was God unable to raise up good a capable men of faith to fight the good fight and preserve His word for their generation and ours?

You do not seem to understand the difference between the scriptures in the Bible that were given by the commandment of G-d and the idea that there should be a Bible comprised of only certain scriptures - which was not commanded by G-d. It is not what is in the Bible it is what is missing that is assumed to be his word which is not. No man is capable of commanding G-d regardless of their faith or goodness.

And btw, among the many revelations that true Christians can and should receive are revelations from Jesus Christ telling us what is and is not truly “scripture”.

I think you are making things up. The most quoted scripture by Jesus Christ is not included in your Bible. This leaves me to think either you do not know what you are saying, or you do not know Christ. If Jesus quoted something as scripture is that not good enough for you - it appears to me you faith more based on what you call "capable men of faith to fight the good fight and preserve His word for their generation and ours?" rather than what Jesus taught.

The point is this - as soon as you say the Bible is Cannon you put words in the mouth of G-d that he never spoke or if he did you have no record of it. If I am wrong then please show me the scripture in your cannon.

This is my problem with the Bible - that it is made out to be something other than what G-d said it should be. If G-d said it then I believe it but when men make it up without G-d - I do not believe it. And so far you refuse to acknowledge my concern - that you do not care is not my concern - my concern is that the Bible is made out to be something that it is not validated by G-d. If the Bible is capable of anything - why not capable of indicating that G-d command it to be cannon and not man.

The Traveler

[Red]

<div class='quotemain'>

While most Christians conform their understanding of God to the scriptures contained in the “Holy Bible”, which is proper in the correct context, the scriptures actually come from those who are authorized to speak for God, or more specifically, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Says who?

Who wrote, oh say, Job? Answer: No body knows.

What evidence is there that God authorized the unknown writer of Job to speak for him? Answer: None.

God himself is silent on the matter. Everything else is a simple matter of faith - that's all.

Those are Ray's words not mine. I'm sure you knew that but I'm clarifying just in case.

[Red]

A bottom-line "biblical" standard for canon--any writings that would be ADDED to the canon should complement the current standard. Of course, this next point is a difference we have: the new must submit to the old, rather than vice versa.

Nice theory but again I think I have a different point of view - in that this appears to be exactly the argument the Scribes and Pharisees used to reject Jesus (and his Apostles) from the existing cannon. It could also be used in the day of Noah as per “What a flood? That does not complement the current standard.”

...

I do not believe that kind of thinking and doctrine complements the current standard. Did not king Saul demonstrate that kind of thinking is unacceptable?

The Traveler

You're fighting a straw man on that one. "The new must submit to the old" in the sense of principle. The argument of the Pharisees was invalid of course because the OT taught of the coming messiah. If the OT didn't teach about a messiah then the Pharisees would have been right in disregarding Jesus. But the OT does teach a new covenant coming, and so it came.

The revelation of the coming Flood is also in harmony with known scripture of the time in that God punishes sin and that nothing could have ever stopped from bringing the waters above on top of their heads.

So when the newer does not submit to, be in harmony with, teach the same principles or fulfill prophecy then the new stuff is not from the same God who gave the old. God cannot contradict Himself, which I think, is really the basis for the cannon idea--or at least a huge part of it.

Now, what's the deal with Saul? I'm not sure what you're refering to.

[prisonchaplain]

Says who? Who wrote, oh say, Job? Answer: No body knows. What evidence is there that God authorized the unknown writer of Job to speak for him? Answer: None. God himself is silent on the matter. Everything else is a simple matter of faith - that's all.

Interesting you should choose JOB--the unofficial patron saint of prisoners. Why, Job's writing about suffering, about loss, about a driving desire to know why evil besets us when we've been faithful--and then God's ultimate answer: I am God, who are you to advise me? Job is vindicated in the end, for his faith, and receives great reward.

Who wrote it? We do not know. It may well be the oldest book in the Bible. However, I am with Red on this--the 39 books of the Old Testament, and the 27 books of the New Testament meld together "miraculously." 66 books written of the course of some 1400 years, by roughly 40 different authors, from different cultures--yet producing a book that details the victories and failings of God's people.

It is true that accepting the Bible as God's Word, true, largely literal--including the supernatural stories that are not obvious allegory or parable--requires an element of faith. There are some factors that point towards faith, and others that might give pause. My faith is not "blind," but it is faith--not purely rational conclusion. Ultimately, God did preserve his Word through the process of canonization.

My understanding is that Mormons accept this too, though they've parked themselves with the KJV translation, and added faith in other writings, left the canon wide open for addition and editing, put all under submission to modern prophecy. Such a stance is also a matter of some reason combined with faith. Perhaps what we are contending about here, is who is exercising more faith and who has more reason?

This is my problem with the Bible - that it is made out to be something other than what G-d said it should be. If G-d said it then I believe it but when men make it up without G-d - I do not believe it. And so far you refuse to acknowledge my concern - that you do not care is not my concern - my concern is that the Bible is made out to be something that it is not validated by G-d. If the Bible is capable of anything - why not capable of indicating that G-d command it to be cannon and not man.

The Traveler

I'm a little confused here. As a Mormon, do you not accept the KJV of the Holy Bible as the Word of God?

[Red]

You say that the present Bible is essentially man's work. Since when was God unable to raise up good a capable men of faith to fight the good fight and preserve His word for their generation and ours?

You do not seem to understand the difference between the scriptures in the Bible that were given by the commandment of G-d and the idea that there should be a Bible comprised of only certain scriptures - which was not commanded by G-d. It is not what is in the Bible it is what is missing that is assumed to be his word which is not. No man is capable of commanding G-d regardless of their faith or goodness.

And btw, among the many revelations that true Christians can and should receive are revelations from Jesus Christ telling us what is and is not truly “scripture”.

I think you are making things up. The most quoted scripture by Jesus Christ is not included in your Bible. This leaves me to think either you do not know what you are saying, or you do not know Christ. If Jesus quoted something as scripture is that not good enough for you - it appears to me you faith more based on what you call "capable men of faith to fight the good fight and preserve His word for their generation and ours?" rather than what Jesus taught.

The point is this - as soon as you say the Bible is Cannon you put words in the mouth of G-d that he never spoke or if he did you have no record of it. If I am wrong then please show me the scripture in your cannon.

This is my problem with the Bible - that it is made out to be something other than what G-d said it should be. If G-d said it then I believe it but when men make it up without G-d - I do not believe it. And so far you refuse to acknowledge my concern - that you do not care is not my concern - my concern is that the Bible is made out to be something that it is not validated by G-d. If the Bible is capable of anything - why not capable of indicating that G-d command it to be cannon and not man.

The Traveler

These are Ray's words:

And btw, among the many revelations that true Christians can and should receive are revelations from Jesus Christ telling us what is and is not truly “scripture”.

to which I responded:

And btw, the Bible is revelation from Jesus Christ, and I do accept it. Now, why would Jesus have to inform us that the Bible, His own words, had become corrupted when He could have stopped the problem in the first place? I've read the parts in the book of Mormon and the articles of Faith that talk about this.

Now I do understand the difference between, "the scriptures in the Bible that were given by the commandment of G-d and the idea that there should be a Bible comprised of only certain scriptures - which was not commanded by G-d." But christians like me believe that we have all of God's word to humanity in the Bible.

This based on Matthew 4:4 "It is written, "'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God." So if did not have every word, how could we really live? Now we have that this applies to all the words He has given up to that point in history. God only saw fit that Moses know the Pentateuch, but today He desires that we have the whole OT and NT. Anything outside of that is rejected if it negates the original in any way. So when you say that our canon is leaving out scripture, I respond that there is no other true scripture out there.

I think you are making things up. The most quoted scripture by Jesus Christ is not included in your Bible. This leaves me to think either you do not know what you are saying, or you do not know Christ. If Jesus quoted something as scripture is that not good enough for you - it appears to me you faith more based on what you call "capable men of faith to fight the good fight and preserve His word for their generation and ours?" rather than what Jesus taught.

And what non-canonized writing did He quote so extensively? This is an honest question, I really don't know what you're talking about. I know He quoted Deuteronomy, Psalms and basically declared the whole OT as authoritative. But i am unaware of anything outside of that, unless you're talking about Jude quoting Enoch.

And no, my faith is not based on men, but God who is unstopable, and He works through men. Noah, Abraham, Moses, the Judges, David, Cyrus, the Prophets, the Apostles and inumerable pastors and missionaries for the last 2000 years. Many, many women could be on that list as well. The unstopable God works through people. It is not they that do it, but God.

The point is this - as soon as you say the Bible is Cannon you put words in the mouth of G-d that he never spoke or if he did you have no record of it. If I am wrong then please show me the scripture in your cannon.

I'll make a list as soon as I can to answer your question. But basically, scripture does testify of itself as being scripture in many places, and if truly scripture it should be preserved, and we happen to call that canonized.

[Traveler]

Now I do understand the difference between, "the scriptures in the Bible that were given by the commandment of G-d and the idea that there should be a Bible comprised of only certain scriptures - which was not commanded by G-d." But christians like me believe that we have all of God's word to humanity in the Bible.

Fine then show me where the doctrine of Canonization is and what scriptures are to be in a cannon. Or give me one example in scripture where inspired men got together in a council and came up with a scripture any scripture - ever. I do not see any Bible scripture or anywhere in Bible scripture about any existing cannon – anciently or for any time. Should not a new doctrine at least agree with something in scripture? I do not see this doctrine of cannon anywhere. All I ask is where on earth did it come from? Why do Christians like you believe that you have all of God's word to humanity in the Bible? Where do you get this doctrine because it just ain't in the Bible? You have to get it from somewhere because you sure believe it. But where do you get it. Please – If you know won’t you share!! You keep saying all of G-d’s word concerning important doctrine is in the Bible. If the Bible as a cannon is included in “all of God's word to humanity” WHERE IS THIS MISSING DOCTRINE!!!! Where do you get this doctrine from????? How many times must I ask??? Do you really not know???

And what non-canonized writing did He quote so extensively? This is an honest question, I really don't know what you're talking about. I know He quoted Deuteronomy, Psalms and basically declared the whole OT as authoritative. But i am unaware of anything outside of that, unless you're talking about Jude quoting Enoch.

Jude comes right out and says that he is quoting from Enoch but there are many more quotes from Enoch. In fact there are so many quotes that in times past scholars claimed that Enoch was written after the NT and is plagiarism. That is until fragments of Enoch were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and predated any NT writings by 300 and more years.

The problem here is that we do not have a complete document of what once was the Book of Enoch but we do know that even when Christ gave the sermon on the MT he quoted directly from the Book of Enoch – at least from the fragments that have been found. Jude was not the only one to quote Enoch. Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls we now know almost all the NT writers quoted from Enoch.

Just a note here – The Book of Moses in the LDS “Pearle of Great Price” has many of the same doctrines missing from the Bible but in the Book of Enoch. I find it rather interesting that G-d would bring forth the Dead Sea Scrolls to witness to lost scripture and most of Christianity will not even consider it.

[Snow]

1. Jesus was Jewish, and clearly recognized and used the canon of his day--basically the Old Testament--primary the LXX, or Greek venacular translation.

When you put it that way you paint a pretty picture that may not have existed.

Another way to put it is: decades after the fact, unknown authors who probably never met Jesus write of him quoting a few limited passages from the Torah. Whether Christ thought the Torah was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is completely unknown.

[prisonchaplain]

Another way to put it is: decades after the fact, unknown authors who probably never met Jesus write of him quoting a few limited passages from the Torah. Whether Christ thought the Torah was the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is completely unknown.

Jesus quoted more than the Torah. His quote from Isaiah about coming to bring freedom to the captives, etc. is well known. We do not see Jesus arguing over canon in the New Testament accounts. He does say that he would not change one jot or tittle of the law.

[Snow]

I'm using the word Torah as in the "entire body of Jewish religious literature, law and teaching as contained chiefly in the Old Testament and Talmud."

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make about not changing the law (not that Jesus - or better said, unknown authors who never met Jesus writing decades after the fact - defined what he meant by the "law") but we Christians believe that Christ in fact changed the law completely... you do eat pork don't you, or at least wear clothes made of mixed fabrics?

[prisonchaplain]

I'm using the word Torah as in the "entire body of Jewish religious literature, law and teaching as contained chiefly in the Old Testament and Talmud."

Okay. As FYI, the Torah = the five books of Moses. The Tanakh is what we call the Old Testament. The Talmud is a rabbinic commentary, from roughly 500 AD, I believe.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make about not changing the law (not that Jesus - or better said, unknown authors who never met Jesus writing decades after the fact - defined what he meant by the "law") but we Christians believe that Christ in fact changed the law completely... you do eat pork don't you, or at least wear clothes made of mixed fabrics?

Jesus said: (Matthew 5:17-18) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (KJV)

So, my point is that Jesus, if we take these writings as God's Word, and if we believe that the writers accurately recorded Jesus words (and I do), saw the continuity between the Old Testament and what would become the New Testament. When He says "The Law"--that's Torah. When he says the prophets, we basically have the Tanakh.

[Traveler]

Lets take a look at some of the quotes in the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament from that portion of the Book of Enoch that has been recovered.

Matt 5:5 “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth”

Matt 13:43 “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father.”

Matt 14:28 “Ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”

Matt 26:24 “Woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed! It would be good for that man if he had not been born.”

Matt 24:7, 21, 22, 29, 30 “There shall be famines and earthquakes in divers places...great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved.... Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven.... Then shall the tribes of the earth mourn; and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, with, power and great glory.”

Matt25:31, 32 “Then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory; and before him shall be gathered all nations; and he shall separate them one from another.”

Matt 25:41 “Depart from me, ye cursed, unto everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”

Is anyone surprised? Jesus himself quoted from the Book of Enoch - and what was the reaction of the experts that touted the doctrine of scripture cannon?

John 7:Verse 45-49

45 ¶ Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him?

46 The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.

47 Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived?

48 Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?

49 But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.

The Pharisees clearly believed the law was their cannon and Jesus taught and quoted from their non-cannon.

In light of these things now consider this quote

God only saw fit that Moses know the Pentateuch, but today He desires that we have the whole OT and NT. Anything outside of that is rejected if it negates the original in any way. So when you say that our canon is leaving out scripture, I respond that there is no other true scripture out there.

I sorrow and regret that the Bible has resulted in this kind of thinking - Why then does G-d allow a cannon as a means that sincere people be deceived? Let us look at Ecclesiastes 1:9-10:

“The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun.

Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? It hath been already of old time, which was before us.”

I submit that the doctrine of cannon which allows man to determine what is scripture and what is not acceptable scripture is a doctrine that began with the Pharisees in the days of Jesus.

The Traveler

[Snow]

Okay. As FYI, the Torah = the five books of Moses. The Tanakh is what we call the Old Testament. The Talmud is a rabbinic commentary, from roughly 500 AD, I believe.

To·rah also to·rah (tôr'?, t?r'?, toir'?, tô-rä')

n. Judaism.

1. The first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures.

2. A scroll of parchment containing the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures, used in a synagogue during services.

3. The entire body of religious law and learning including both sacred literature and oral tradition. (Dictionary)

and/or

Torah: The Pentateuch, or the entire body of Jewish religious literature, law and teaching as contained chiefly in the Old Testament and Talmud. (Minnesota State University Internet list of Jewish Terms)

Jesus said: (Matthew 5:17-18) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (KJV)

Yeah - I knew you would say that... and the way the law was fullfilled was by changing it - obviously, seeing how it changed and all.

So, my point is that Jesus, if we take these writings as God's Word, and if we believe that the writers accurately recorded Jesus words (and I do), saw the continuity between the Old Testament and what would become the New Testament. When He says "The Law"--that's Torah. When he says the prophets, we basically have the Tanakh.

One thing we know for sure about those writing... they are the record of man's (the Jews) relationship with God... from man's point of view. God himself is silent on the matter.

[roman]

It seems to me that there is a great lack of trust or a great amount of unbelief in God to reveal his will in written form to men------that is hard to over come and to bring some into a relative discussion on scripture and what really is the truth as God defines it.

[prisonchaplain]

Concerning Torah, I recognized that your dictionary's third usage was broader than just the first five books of Moses. I'd simply point out that in all my conversations with Jews, including rabbis, Torah has always referred to the five books of Moses. Additionally, the whole idea of asking a Jew, "Are you Torah-observant," suggests the laws of Moses.

Jesus said: (Matthew 5:17-18) Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (KJV)

Yeah - I knew you would say that... and the way the law was fullfilled was by changing it - obviously, seeing how it changed and all.

Are trying to prove Jesus contradicted himself? In this case, what's the point? If we follow Jesus, we'll obey his commands. Our understanding is that Jesus completed some of the law (thus, we're no longer obligated--such as the food laws you mentioned earlier). He explained some laws (lust = adultery). And, yes, he certain 'changed' some of the mistaken interpretations. Perhaps THAT was his real point. Perhaps what he was getting at is: I know what my Father had in mind. Y'all mussed it up, and I'm here to tell you what He had in mind. I'm changing nothing God intended--only your skewed applications.

One thing we know for sure about those writing... they are the record of man's (the Jews) relationship with God... from man's point of view. God himself is silent on the matter.

Well, the letter to Timothy tells us that all Scripture is inspired by God. It's pretty clear that at the time of writing, he was referring primarily to our Old Testament. So, unless Paul was a false prophet, I'm not sure how we can say God is silent.

[Snow]

It seems to me that there is a great lack of trust or a great amount of unbelief in God to reveal his will in written form to men------that is hard to over come and to bring some into a relative discussion on scripture and what really is the truth as God defines it.

That's a low brow response.

I don't have any doubt that God can reveal or do whatever he wants to do or reveal. What I doubt is that God did or said or cause some of the things that certain unknown authors said to did or revealed, at least in the way the Bible described them.

For example: The all-good God that I beleive in would not kill 42 children for calling someone "bald head." Nor do I think donkey's talk. Nor do I think God commands the murder of married women and kidnapping and rape of virgins.

[Snow]

Are trying to prove Jesus contradicted himself? In this case, what's the point?

The point I am making that you can say the law was completed or fullfileed - whatever. The fact of the matter the law is changed. You used not be able to wear a cotton-poly blend. Now it is no longer a sin.

Well, the letter to Timothy tells us that all Scripture is inspired by God. It's pretty clear that at the time of writing, he was referring primarily to our Old Testament. So, unless Paul was a false prophet, I'm not sure how we can say God is silent.

Two things:

1. That says nothing about what exactly constitues scripture.

2. It says nothing about what "inspired" means. The Bible is riddled with mistakes yet I believe it is inspired.

3. We accept as a matter of faith that what Paul said was inspired but God himself says absolutely nothing about it. God is completely silent. Paul may have assumed that donkey's talked but that doesn't mean donkey's really do talk.

[roman]

I always have trouble believing a person is sincere about a topic that contains faith when they say---------------------"I know God can do anything and reveal anythingBUT I choose not to believe it the way its revealed----cause of this or that reason." That is unbelief and not trusting God. It basically stems from a misunderstanding of scripture and who God is.

[Snow]

I always have trouble believing a person is sincere about a topic that contains faith when they say---------------------"I know God can do anything and reveal anythingBUT I choose not to believe it the way its revealed----cause of this or that reason." That is unbelief and not trusting God. It basically stems from a misunderstanding of scripture and who God is.

Nonsense - be rational.

You yourself don't believe that everything ever written is from God just because someone else claims is was.

There are things from the Bible that I know you don't believe - do you need a list?

[roman]

I believe the Bible to be fully inspired--or God-breathed. I also believe it to be true and trustwothry. That is why i can rely on it as authoritive on the revalation of God and his will for mankind. Are there parts i stuggle with---yes. But that is probably because I don't fully understand it all and am still learning.

I also believe that in order to fully apply the truth of scripture one must know God and trust him that he won't lead you astry on such things----in fact I believe that is his promise that if we do trust him he will lead us throught the darkest of nights and bring our understanding to light---and that in turn will bring light to certain troublesome passages of scripture.

Is everything written of God in the Bible---no but thats not the point----God is still using--say like the 3 friends of Job and their false or work advice--God uses that to make a point. If you are saying that their are passages of scripture that never orginated from God and are soly the work of man----well thats a different story---one that now and today---I don't agree with-----today i say every word is --God breathed----its my understanding that is lacking--but improving and growing

[prisonchaplain]

Two things:

1. That says nothing about what exactly constitues scripture.

That would be like saying that when Jerry Falwell speaks about the Word of God, since he does not specifically mention the 66 books of the Bible, we cannot be certain that is what he is referring to. When Paul wrote his letter to Timothy, at minimum he was referring to the available Old Testament of his day.

2. It says nothing about what "inspired" means. The Bible is riddled with mistakes yet I believe it is inspired.

Sure it does. It says, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

3. We accept as a matter of faith that what Paul said was inspired but God himself says absolutely nothing about it. God is completely silent. Paul may have assumed that donkey's talked but that doesn't mean donkey's really do talk.

You don't believe in miracles? You don't believe that God, on certain occasions, chose to supernaturally intervene in the lives of his people?

[Snow]

<div class='quotemain'>

Two things:

1. That says nothing about what exactly constitues scripture.

That would be like saying that when Jerry Falwell speaks about the Word of God, since he does not specifically mention the 66 books of the Bible, we cannot be certain that is what he is referring to. When Paul wrote his letter to Timothy, at minimum he was referring to the available Old Testament of his day.

So you claim that the author of Timothy (maybe Paul and maybe not) knew everything that was ever written that was scriptural and could legitimately give God's opinion on it?

Other than faith, and nothing but faith, how could you make sure a claim? Besides the prime facie unlikelihood of such a notion there is ample evidence that the Old Testament that we know now was not all the writing that the Jews or some Jews considered scripture (not that I believe that the Jews were the only ones to whom God revealed himself). When the New Testament quoted scripture, it didn't quote the Hebrew Bible, it quoted the Septuagint. The Septuagint contained the apocrapha. Some Jews considered the canon as settled on by the Council of Jamnia to be authoritive but not all the Jews; certainly not the Ethopian Jews. Our Bible itself quotes or refers to much missing scripture in a way that makes clear that it was considered authentic and valuable. Sometimes called the missing scripture it consists of at least the following:

Book of the Wars of the Lord

Numbers 21:14

Book of Jasher

Joshua 10:13; 2 Samuel 1:18

Book of the acts of Solomon

1 Kings 11:41

Book of Samuel the seer

1 Chronicles 29:29

Book of Gad the seer

1 Chronicles 29:29

Book of Nathan the prophet

1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29

Prophecy of Ahijah

2 Chronicles 9:29

Visions of Iddo the Seer

2 Chronicles 9:29; 12:15; 13:22

Book of Shemaiah

2 Chronicles 12:15

Book of Jehu

2 Chronicles 20:34

Sayings of the Seers

2 Chronicles 33:19

An epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians

1 Corinthians 5:9

An earlier epistle to the Ephesians

Ephesians 3:3

Epistle to the Laodiceans

Colosians 4:16

Prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude

Jude 1:14

Book of the covenant

Exodus 24:7 (may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus)

The Manner of the Kingdom, written by Samuel

1 Samuel 10:25

Acts of Uzziah, written by Isaiah

2 Chronicles 26:22

The "Acts of Abijah...in the Story of the Prophet Iddo"

2 Chronicles 13:22 (seems to not be the same as the Prophecy of Ahijah or the Visions of Iddo)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

2. It says nothing about what "inspired" means. The Bible is riddled with mistakes yet I believe it is inspired.

Sure it does. It says, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

No - 2 Tim. 3:16-17 is stating some of the charateristics of scripture, not giving a comprehensive of what "inspired" means. Does it mean, for example, historically accurate, literally true, and error free? If so then a good deal of the Bible, as it exists in it's current state, is not inspired. Or, does it mean influenced by God but not necessarily perfect?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

3. We accept as a matter of faith that what Paul said was inspired but God himself says absolutely nothing about it. God is completely silent. Paul may have assumed that donkey's talked but that doesn't mean donkey's really do talk.

You don't believe in miracles? You don't believe that God, on certain occasions, chose to supernaturally intervene in the lives of his people?

Sure I do - though obviously many times what people claims is God supernatural intervention certainly is not. Nevertheless - God is saying nothing about the Bible. No videotape, no interviews, no written opinions. Yeah, maybe he reveals his will to his followings though the personal whisperings of the Spirit but we can hardly count on that publically, outside the individual, since so many people believe so many diametically opposed things, all claiming that God reveals it to them.

God - rather than speaking up and clearing up the confusion, remains silent on the matter.