Scriptural examples supporting claim of Bible as word of God

(Richard Wright) #21

Hello Benjamin.

That is not even wrong.

People are slaves to sin. I was a slave to sin until I met Christ. I still am really, but to a much lesser extent. People around the world might not believe that lust is a sin, but over half of marriages around the world end in divorce. I would say a main reason is that someone in the marriage lusted after someone else, which lead to an adulterous affair. An authentic Christian will do his/her best not to do that. In much worldwide church the divorce rate is less than 10%, and it’s not due to any mystery, it’s because we’re blessed by God from following his word.

Well there isn’t, so why complain about it. Jesus gave you the path to eternal life, why are you complaining about it?

I came to Christ as as deist. I didn’t need scientific revelations to convince me that the bible is from God. I started by reading the gospels. I saw in Jesus’ teachings a profound wisdom that was beyond what man would come up with. Then I read the OT teachings on the coming of the Kingdom of God, that were fulfilled in the NT, and I knew the bible was from God.

And what about the prophecies. The traditional date of Isaiah is 750 BC, when he lived. We know that, in the very least, it is from 150 BC, from the Dead Sea Scrolls. Look at all the prophecies in that one book alone, including the whole 53rd chapter. I think God has given skeptics plenty of reason to believe that the bible is from Him. Skeptics will always find a reason to doubt, usually because they don’t want to change.

Why then does Alcoholic Anonymous require someone to have a, “higher source” to pray to, to help them overcome their addiction (I believe other addiction groups have this requirement as well). Jesus and Paul said drunkenness is a sin. If you get drunk once, you are more likely to become an alcoholic. More wisdom from scripture.

"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse." (Romans 1:20)

I, like the ancients, knew there had to be a god. Where does the universe come from? How does elegant math, as sign of intelligence, describe physics? You can talk about the multiverse, one, where does it come from, if it exists (I don’t think it does), and two, how did it become fine-tuned to be one where there is an infinite number of universes with different physical laws, the only type that will create intelligent life? It’s obvious that there is a God.

Benjamin, you make it seem like biblical Christianity is disappearing, but its not. I grew up in Boston. In 1980 there was basically no biblical Christianity there, and now there are several churches in the thousands. And Boston is a skeptical place. Authentic Christianity has its issues, but it’s not disappearing at all.


The problem with this is that, back in the day it was written, they may not have had any excuse. But today, with Dawkins, Hitchens, Hawking, Harris and the really rude and annoying one, Krauss… We have strong excuses to completely disregard the Bible and deny any Gods exist at all. People here say that the Bible was written for ancient peoples, not us, Well… The ‘no excuse’ statement no longer applies.

Crazy religion is on the increase, genuine Christianity is all but gone. At least in Australia. I can walk into any ‘church’ here and find everyone living double lives or teaching children that Men rode Dinosaurs… And that’s from those who even ATTEMPT to answer questions! [content removed by moderator]

(Mitchell W McKain) #23

Academic. I was talking about the science of psychology. Both parents were psychology majors in the late 50s early 60s.

When I studied the topic myself in school decades later I found I was particularly in agreement with Carl Rogers.

(RiderOnTheClouds) #24

My studies in the Hebrew scriptures have led me to conclude that only Jesus could have been the messiah. The messiah had to come before the destruction of the temple (Daniel 9), he would be crucified (Psalm 22:16) and most importantly would be called Yeshua (as shown by the Messianic high priest)

(Mark D.) #25

I only took a little psychology in college. I remember being intrigued by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs but Carl Rogers doesn’t ring a bell. Outside of school I was very interested in Jungian depth psychology, especially the american James Hillman.

Where you rely on quantum mechanics to provide a back door for deistic interventions (hope I have that right), I look to the depths of consciousness to make sense of god belief. I actually think what gives rise to god belief can be of value with or without theism.

(Randy) #26

Wow that is a whole area of study which has a lot of controversy.

(Mitchell W McKain) #27


Carl Rogers is a very big name in psychology, though considerably more recent than Freud or Jung. You should definitely look him up. He established a method for psychiatric practice which is a vast improvement over Freudian psychoanalysis. His greatest contribution is not theories about how the mind works but more about how a professional can actually be of help to people. I frankly thinks he deserves the title of “father of modern counseling.” But at least read the Wikipedia article on him which focuses on what it calls his “person centered approach.”

Shall I assume you are familiar with the pragmatism of C. S. Pierce, author of the "Neglected argument for the existence of God, and tell you that I am this sort of pragmatist also. Otherwise, I will sum it up with the following maxim… “The effect of believing something is part of its truth value.”

But clearly I do not restrict myself to this side of things. I see no reason to shy away from metaphysics (study of the nature of reality), for I do not support the positivist attitude that metaphysics is meaningless. I do recognize, however, that we must be careful about confusing the findings of science with particular metaphysical conclusions. And I certainly support the warnings of deflationism about making metaphysical presumptions part of your definition of truth itself.

(Vlad K. I'm an Agnostic Atheist) #28

You are asking good questions, in my opinion. But I am afraid you will not get good answers, because the matters of religion always come down to acceptance of the proposition on faith, without seeing/understanding.

I mean, look at the New Testament books, which were officially canonized by the Roman Catholic Church. If (what is now known as) Protestants were around in the 4th Century, we could have still debated which books of the New Testament should be included and which should be rejected. But for whatever reasons, questions of the validity of the Canon are taken for granted by many (again, in my observation).

(Randy) #29

I would have voted against Revelation :slight_smile: (though I understand that and 2nd Peter were late to be accepted). did you get a chance to read Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy with Bird, Mohler, Vanhoozer, Franke and Enns? there’s a thread on it.

This podcast from Enns was interesting and helpful to me–Where Did the New Testament Come From?–Allert.

(Mark D.) #30

Afraid not. But if I understand your summary correctly I wonder how you justify a God that has created the entire physical universe from the effect of believing it. I remember reading that you place spirituality with subjectivity, separate from the physical world. (Please correct if I’m remembering that wrong.) Are you assuming that if there are sufficient effects on the subjective/spiritual side that the God which is thereby justified must be one which bridges the gap between the subjective and the physical? To my way of thinking it does indeed justify a God on the subjective/spiritual side, but I see no reason to assume any link between that God ‘inside’ and the one presumed to be the author of the physical as well as the subjective. I don’t start off assuming that God if it is anything at all must be the one of the bible. I really think consciousness is a great enough sphere for God to achieve the effects you suggest. But please do tell me where I’ve gone wrong.

(Mitchell W McKain) #31

What would be really really interesting is to hear the discussion that went into these decisions. What were the pros and cons given for each of the book when they discussed whether to include these books or not? What I suspect is that books were included because some parts were deemed really important in spite of other parts which were considered troublesome.

(Mitchell W McKain) #32

Well my response was recognizing your highly pragmatic approach which seemed far more concerned with the positive effects of beliefs rather than the objective reality of what is believed.

Perhaps you missed the word “part”. The effect of believing something is part of its truth value. So no I do not justify beliefs exclusively from the effects of believing them.

Hmmm… now I wonder if you are following something more like Terry Pratchett’s suggestion in “The Hogsfather,” that we believe necessary lies.

I associate spirituality with the subjective aspect of reality and physicality with the objective aspect of reality. But perhaps that does not quite mean the same thing to me as it does to you – maybe the way I say it with the words “aspect of reality” is significant to the difference?

I certainly believe that reality is not exclusively objective. But God is purely spiritual, so no I would not see Him as bridging any such gap. But perhaps I need to remind you that I also define the physical and the spiritual as different forms of the same energy-like stuff and they are different only by fact that the physical forms are part of the mathematical space-time structure of the universe and the spiritual is not. But let’s make that theoretical explanation more concrete with the following assertions of belief:

  1. The spiritual is not less real than the physical but more so. The physical is practically like a representation on a 3d video screen made of atoms and particles instead of pixels.
  2. That God is spiritual means that He is not a part of the space-time structure/ordering of events in the universe, but He is the creator of that space-time structure, i.e. the universe.

Well I certainly understood that you didn’t really believe in the latter. The spiritual/subjective nature of God means that what people experience of Him can vary a great deal, but this does not mean that the reality of God is limited to those experiences, as if there is nothing beyond them. It is just that the relationships with spiritual things are not a matter of mathematical laws independent of desire and belief.

After all you can say practically the same thing of anyone – that how different people know a person varies considerably. You might notice that I am avoiding the use of the word objective to refer to the reality beyond the experiences, and this is because I deny that the reality is exclusively objective. Also the fact that there is a reality beyond what you experience doesn’t mean the experience is wrong. I suppose you can say this means that some of the reality of things/people is relational.

But the subjective God is the one in the Bible for a huge portion of the population of the world. therefore your statement here seems to be presuming a reality beyond subjective experience??? (color me puzzled)

I certainly agree that the consciousness is a big enough sphere to explain a great deal of what is going on in religion, but perhaps it is because I am a believer that I see no reason to limit the reality of God to that sphere.


Whoah there, so none of you believe the Holy Spirit guided Man into selecting what was true and rejecting what was made up? For example, the Book of Enoch is just garbage. Surely that is some forgery by evil hearts and that is why it was not included…? Call me naive, but I always kind of thought that perhaps Satan was behind a lot of this? You accept this being’s existence right (other than SuperBigV)?

(Randy) #34

I do believe the Holy Spirit was involved. I have some questions on the meaning of Revelation though. It is highly symbolic

Seriously, @DOL and others observed that the meaning may be more related to St John’s immediate time. There is a whole study on hebrew number use, gematriya, and the context that suggest this strongly.

I do not know anything much about theories on Satan and the book of Enoch. I do believe the Devil exists but am not sure we need attribute a lot to him since I can mess up a lot myself. Pete Enns writes about inspiration and Incarnation, and that has helped me. The linked discussion of how we got the NT is from a quite conservative scholar I believe. Let me know your thoughts too if you like.

I have struggled over Revelation for years and sometimes I think that the “blessing” that John gave to those who read the book meant that whoever made it through had to be blessed. I was mostly tongue in cheek.

(Mark D.) #35

Thank you for your very thoughtful reply. I’ll think about that a while.

(Mitchell W McKain) #36

I do believe the Holy Spirit guided those ecumenical councils. I, in fact, believe that the inspiration and guidance of God, rather than being rare, pours down from heaven in torrent. It is everywhere, in the majority of books, films, sermons, and even in the unexpected words of little children – not controlling, but a subtle influence. His communications to us are often in spite of what people intend to say rather than because of them.

Indeed. I quite agree. It would be considerably more difficult for me to be a Christian if they had included that thing. I strongly disagree with the interpretation of Genesis 6 as refering to angels breeding with women.

Yes, I credit the existence of this being but I do not credit him with anything else – not with responsibility for the fall of man and not with responsibility for any of the evil in the world. Why? Because I believe that blaming him for the fall is what created him in the first place. Power and responsibility go hand in hand and as long as we credit him with responsibility for evil then we give him power over us. I believe the devil exists but I do not believe in him.

Furthermore, I believe the devil is envisioned with goat like features because he is in essence nothing more than a scapegoat. He is there because if we have to blame something other than ourselves for the evil in the world, then it is better to blame him than to blame God, and thus God assigned him to this role. But it is better yet to shoulder the responsibility ourselves. None of this changes, however, the fact that he is the personification of evil, and thus any sympathy for him whatsoever, is completely misguided. He was an angel – a created tool rather than a living entity, no more than exactly what he was made to be, serving God however God requires.

(Mark D.) #37

Whoa. Never heard of that before but what a strange but possibly fun tale that must be. Did you like the book?

(Mark D.) #38

Probably. For me I posit a fairly naive “reality” whose physical properties flow from the reality itself whereas its subjective/spiritual aspect are filtered by the sensory/cognitive nature of a being whose physicality is still subject to the physical aspect of reality. For me physicality is primary and experience is a very nice add on for living/physical beings with the right stuff cognitively speaking.

I don’t think it likely that the physical itself will turn out to flow from the cognitive activity of a higher order being who manufactures the universe as we experience it. Of course I have no case to make in favor of my bias, I just admit that I have it.

(Mitchell W McKain) #39

Actually… I haven’t read that particular book. It was made into a movie (not animated). The Hogsfather is discworld’s version of Santa Claus and someone hires an exceptional assassin to snuff him out. But the main characters and heroes of the film are Death and his granddaughter Susan (an interesting character in her own right).

But the particularly notable philosophical scene is when Death explains to his granddaughter about the danger to the world from this nefarious plot, during which He says that belief in things like the tooth fairy are practice for believing in the really big lies such as love and justice. It is both amusing and intriguing – but definitely unforgettable. For me it suggests that the belief in gods and myths may be tied to our invention/conceptualization of abstractions and ideals, and thus essential for our humanity.

(Mark D.) #40

Careful, you’re sounding like a Jungian.

BTW I agree that neither Freud nor Jung is worth a darn toward actually doing anyone any good in counseling. More like an intellectual indulgence for those who could afford it. But obviously you enjoy thinking about the big picture so maybe you would enjoy that sort of thing if it fit your budget and priorities.

I personally never did any psychoanalysis but I especially enjoyed reading James Hillman’s Re-Visioning Psychology. Interesting observations and questions to consider but no system of beliefs that can hold a candle to either Christianity or disc world.