Guest Thegoodbook Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 In order to rebut the claims that the Bible is not inspired and or not true I have realized that I must first differentiate between the ideas of inspiration and infallibility. These questions are related but they are not the same question so to ask "Is the Bible true?", this is not necessarily the same question as "Is the Bible inspired?". A contemporary movement in the theology called Neo-Orthodoxy claims that the Bible is inspired, but also asserts that it is not completely true. and obviously some other book, such as Churchill's The Gathering Storm, could possibly be entirely true without being inspired. Now when the Biblical definition of inspiration is used it necessarily implies truth even though there is often truth without inspiration. so before we actually move to the question of truth or to the idea of contradictions we must first examine whether or not the Bible itself claims to be inspired. It would seem prudent to examine the question of truth prior to examining the question of inspiration but I will ask if we can just assume that the Bible itself claims to be inspired by God. The reason that I feel is important to deal with this question is because, if the Bible itself does not claim to be inspired, then one can raise the objection rightly that we are going far beyond the evidence to assert that the Bible is inspired. So in essence do we agree that the Bible claims that it is the inspired word of God? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 The Bible claims it, yes. (which doesn't necessarily make it true. For it to be truthfully inspired, then it must be true, and it must be true if it's inspired, but if it's not inspired, then it doesn't have to be true, and hence its true that it's lying about being inspired.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 The Bible claims it, yes. (which doesn't necessarily make it true. For it to be truthfully inspired, then it must be true, and it must be true if it's inspired, but if it's not inspired, then it doesn't have to be true, and hence its true that it's lying about being inspired.) So, how isn't it true. It claims it yet for some reason you don't believe it. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 The Bible claims it, yes. (which doesn't necessarily make it true. For it to be truthfully inspired, then it must be true, and it must be true if it's inspired, but if it's not inspired, then it doesn't have to be true, and hence its true that it's lying about being inspired.) So, how isn't it true. It claims it yet for some reason you don't believe it. Why? This message and all things said by myself are the inspired words of God. Revealed to me by God, the true God. This is not a lie because who would lie or make up such things considering the punishment from God for doing so? So this message says it is the inspired word of God. I say it this message (and all I say) is the inspired word of God (note I said inspired and not perfect because my own human nature sometimes interferes with the perfect message that I receive from God and so God will inspire to restate His case if that happens. So any perceived errors are not with the perfect Word of God but rather introductions on my part). Therefore, by your own reasoning, you should believe this message and all I say are the inspired words of God. Do you? If not, why not? mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 The Bible claims it, yes. (which doesn't necessarily make it true. For it to be truthfully inspired, then it must be true, and it must be true if it's inspired, but if it's not inspired, then it doesn't have to be true, and hence its true that it's lying about being inspired.) So, how isn't it true. It claims it yet for some reason you don't believe it. Why? Because it's circular. I can only believe it's true if I believe if it's true. But if I don't believe it is true, then I don't believe it is true. An never will the two meet. Like me saying: everything I'm saying is true, and you know it's true, because I said everything I'm saying is true. If someone is inspired and write something then it is true. If that someone claims he is inspired than he is inspired. And since he is inspired and true, then he is true and inspired. Now I tell you I'm inspired to write this. That makes it true. -edit- The only question TGB did was to ask if the Bible claims itself to be inspired. And yes, so it does. Anything that is inspired is assumed to be true. Now if the Bible is true, then it is inspired and true. If the Bible is false, then it lies about being inspired, and hence its false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderbolt Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 If someone is inspired and write something then it is true. If that someone claims he is inspired than he is inspired. And since he is inspired and true, then he is true and inspired. Now I tell you I'm inspired to write this. That makes it true. -edit- The only question TGB did was to ask if the Bible claims itself to be inspired. And yes, so it does. Anything that is inspired is assumed to be true. Now if the Bible is true, then it is inspired and true. If the Bible is false, then it lies about being inspired, and hence its false. That makes my brain hurt - pretty much like the bible. I have this picture of a dog chasing his tail ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Ouroboros Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtheistMommy Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 Inspired by god, sure. However, isn't it possible that it could have been inspired by a different god or goddess or even devil? After all, the devil does love to tempt people, doesn't he? Couldn't it be possible that the devil appeared to one of these authors and tricked him into thinking he was "god?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thegoodbook Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 The Bible claims it, yes. (which doesn't necessarily make it true. For it to be truthfully inspired, then it must be true, and it must be true if it's inspired, but if it's not inspired, then it doesn't have to be true, and hence its true that it's lying about being inspired.) If it is inspired by God, then it must be true. That is tacitly implied by the idea of inspiration. To say truthfully inspired is an unnecessary redundancy. If it is proven to be untrue then it is not inspired. It is an all or nothing proposition via the scripture I have provided. Therefore it is agreed that the scripture claims to be the inspired revealed word from God himself. Now any logic student will tell you that if the form of your proof is correct and the premises are true, then the conclusion that follows is necessarily true. Therefore if it is true that p1. Socrates is a man and p2. All men are mortal Then the following conclusion must also be true: c. Socrates is mortal If one is to maintain a consistent philosophy, one must start with an axiom or set of axioms that is inevitably true. p1. God exists or nothing exists p.2 Not nothing exists (something exists) C. Therefore, God exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scitsofreaky Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 p1. God exists or nothing existsA false dichotomy, if I am not mistaken. (I could be mistaken, I'm terrible with my fallacies) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroikaze Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 The Bible claims it, yes. (which doesn't necessarily make it true. For it to be truthfully inspired, then it must be true, and it must be true if it's inspired, but if it's not inspired, then it doesn't have to be true, and hence its true that it's lying about being inspired.) If it is inspired by God, then it must be true. That is tacitly implied by the idea of inspiration. To say truthfully inspired is an unnecessary redundancy. Not nessarally, there are other posiblities. For instance, since God, if he exists, must be beyond human understanding, its posible for him to inspire the writting of a book, but the writters got the message wrong p1. God exists or nothing exists p.2 Not nothing exists (something exists) C. Therefore, God exists. The problem with this, is that P1 is not demostratable as true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
white_raven23 Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 p1. God exists or nothing exists p.2 Not nothing exists (something exists) C. Therefore, God exists. But this is no justification for Biblegod. Your thread started out as the infallibility of the BIBLE. NOT whether or not god exists in the first place. Proving the existence of such a being in no way proves they associated themselves in any manner with the writing of that book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtheistMommy Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 If it is inspired by God, then it must be true. That is tacitly implied by the idea of inspiration. To say truthfully inspired is an unnecessary redundancy. If it is proven to be untrue then it is not inspired. It is an all or nothing proposition via the scripture I have provided. Therefore it is agreed that the scripture claims to be the inspired revealed word from God himself. Now any logic student will tell you that if the form of your proof is correct and the premises are true, then the conclusion that follows is necessarily true. Therefore if it is true that p1. Socrates is a man and p2. All men are mortal Then the following conclusion must also be true: c. Socrates is mortal If one is to maintain a consistent philosophy, one must start with an axiom or set of axioms that is inevitably true. p1. God exists or nothing exists p.2 Not nothing exists (something exists) C. Therefore, God exists. Like most words the word "Inspried" is subjective. The definition has many meanings. To say that inspiration equals truth is false. 3 entries found for inspired. in·spire v. in·spired, in·spir·ing, in·spires v. tr. To affect, guide, or arouse by divine influence. To fill with enlivening or exalting emotion: hymns that inspire the congregation; an artist who was inspired by Impressionism. To stimulate to action; motivate: a sales force that was inspired by the prospect of a bonus. To affect or touch: The falling leaves inspired her with sadness. To draw forth; elicit or arouse: a teacher who inspired admiration and respect. To be the cause or source of; bring about: an invention that inspired many imitations. To draw in (air) by inhaling. Archaic. To breathe on. To breathe life into. v. intr. To stimulate energies, ideals, or reverence: a leader who inspires by example. To inhale. Why would nothing have to exist if god does not exist? Are you speaking of a "creator?" I've heard this arument three times this week. Why do you believe that things cannot be made out of chance? The maker argument has no ending. If god made us than god has makers and his makers have makers and so forth. Who are gods makers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sub_zer0 Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 This message and all things said by myself are the inspired words of God. Revealed to me by God, the true God. This is not a lie because who would lie or make up such things considering the punishment from God for doing so? So this message says it is the inspired word of God. I say it this message (and all I say) is the inspired word of God (note I said inspired and not perfect because my own human nature sometimes interferes with the perfect message that I receive from God and so God will inspire to restate His case if that happens. So any perceived errors are not with the perfect Word of God but rather introductions on my part). Therefore, by your own reasoning, you should believe this message and all I say are the inspired words of God. Do you? If not, why not? mwc It is not, because the originally penned autographs of the prophets, Old and New was perfect in all ways, shape and form. You are twisting what it means by inspired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 It is not, because the originally penned autographs of the prophets, Old and New was perfect in all ways, shape and form. You are twisting what it means by inspired. If the Babble was perfect, then reading it should have perfect results in favor of winning new adherents, right? If it is not perfect, then it'd fail utterly at that task. Since many people here have read the Babble, including yours truly, and are not Xian, then clearly the Babble is flawed. If it were perfect, it'd make sense. Only a twisted moron of a god would give us such incomprehensible gobbeldygook to base a soul-saving religion on. The Babble itself proves its own falsehood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 So in essence do we agree that the Bible claims that it is the inspired word of God? That's entirely irrelevant, though. Some people can look to their concept of God and feel inspired by that concept to write things down. If you're talking about inspiration as if from something like one of the Muses...then no. p1. God exists or nothing existsA false dichotomy, if I am not mistaken. (I could be mistaken, I'm terrible with my fallacies) yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 p1. God exists or nothing exists Don't agree. It presupposes that God must exist for everything to exist. That's a belief, not a proper posit. You're argument for "inspired" and "true" is still circular in your post. Btw, thinking about inspired. It doesn't necessarily mean it is true. That's also a posit I can't agree to. Saying "inspired" you only refer to "inspiration by a divine being that's telling the truth.", while Satan (which I don't believe exist anymore than God) could inspire people with lies. So lets say the Satanic Bible was inspired by the Devil, and this Bible say God does not exist, is it true or a lie? If it's true, then we know God doesn't exist, if it is a lie, then inspiration does not mean truth. So either way you cut the cheese, it still is nothing more than just cheese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 This message and all things said by myself are the inspired words of God. Revealed to me by God, the true God. This is not a lie because who would lie or make up such things considering the punishment from God for doing so? So this message says it is the inspired word of God. I say it this message (and all I say) is the inspired word of God (note I said inspired and not perfect because my own human nature sometimes interferes with the perfect message that I receive from God and so God will inspire to restate His case if that happens. So any perceived errors are not with the perfect Word of God but rather introductions on my part). Therefore, by your own reasoning, you should believe this message and all I say are the inspired words of God. Do you? If not, why not? mwc It is not, because the originally penned autographs of the prophets, Old and New was perfect in all ways, shape and form. You are twisting what it means by inspired. Then you've read these originals? Impressive. Nonetheless. My message is perfect because God says it is. Prove God otherwise. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 Using the Bible to show the Bible is true and/or inspired? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artur Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 It is not, because the originally penned autographs of the prophets, Old and New was perfect in all ways, shape and form. You are twisting what it means by inspired. Then you've read these originals? Impressive. Good point. I'd like to see those originals. And I'm sure millions of people are interested in reading those originals too. And I wonder why Gosple of Judas, Gospel of Thomas etc, are not inspired? They claim to be the word of God too, so they must be inspired, and hence true, and then we know Judas conspired with Jesus to give him up. The Qur'an is claims to be inspired by Allah (God). And Muhammed talked to the Angel Gabriel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwc Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 Good point. I'd like to see those originals. And I'm sure millions of people are interested in reading those originals too. I'm not interested in the original releases more than I'm interested in the first drafts. I want to find a big pot in a cave that has the Ugaritic (and whatever other texts) and a pile of half finished scrolls where the story is being reworked into the things we're familiar with. That's the goldmine in my mind. But I'm sure the very first release would be quite good too. And I wonder why Gosple of Judas, Gospel of Thomas etc, are not inspired? They claim to be the word of God too, so they must be inspired, and hence true, and then we know Judas conspired with Jesus to give him up. The Qur'an is claims to be inspired by Allah (God). And Muhammed talked to the Angel Gabriel. This is the point with my posts. There's no criteria other than what the individual wants to accept (which normally comes down to "god wouldn't say that" or something...so you can speak for god but I can't I guess). If you think they're inspired then they are. If you don't, then they're not. No one can prove that god didn't elect me official spokesman but they sure believe it with Paul (or Mohammad or Joseph Smith and so on) based on the same "evidence" I provided. This thread is fairly pointless. mwc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 First edition would be interesting to own, it would be worth mucho-dollares. Front page to Genesis: To my dear Dolly, This book is completely fictious and any resemblance to any existing person is purely coincidental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caretaker Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 So, how isn't it true. It claims it yet for some reason you don't believe it. Why? You haven't met a con man yet, haven't you? Or perhaps never received any chain letters in the mail or email? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts