The Bible - indications of divine inspiration

dead one

Dades wrote: »

So far I've gathered:

The Bible is not divinely inspired, it's moral message changes over time, and it is very much open to interpretation.

The Bible was divinely inspired, when it was revealed to Jesus or when it was sent to children of Isreal -- After that jews changed its law and orders, in order to make them divinely inspired i.e the chosen one.

smokingman

For a start, I see no unicorns in the world.....surely the bible wouldn't get that wrong...?

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

There is nothing in it that appears representative of an intelligence unfitting of the people who lived at the time.

I think it would be fairer to say that there's nothing in the bible to suggest it wasn't written by poets and/or delusional, power-hungry men. Evidence does not suggest that people were less intelligent then, than they are now.

krudler

dead one wrote: »

The Bible was divinely inspired, when it was revealed to Jesus or when it was sent to children of Isreal -- After that jews changed its law and orders, in order to make them divinely inspired i.e the chosen one.

according to....? oh the people who wrote it, that makes sense. thats like a wikipedia article citing your own same article as a reference. its true..cos I said so.

sephir0th

dead one wrote: »

The Bible was divinely inspired

Passages to indicate it was please...

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

I think it would be fairer to say that there's nothing in the bible to suggest it wasn't written by poets and/or delusional, power-hungry men. Evidence does not suggest that people were less intelligent then, than they are now.

Replace the word 'intelligence' with 'accumulated knowledge' so.

sensibleken

It was in the same way as some films are 'inspired by true events' ie completely fictional and borderline libelous

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

Replace the word 'intelligence' with 'accumulated knowledge' so.

Fair enough I just wasn't sure if your view was that people were thicker back then, since that's one of the arguments that's trotted out regularly by believers to explain why the bible doesn't contain anything we wouldn't expect it to contain.

UnRevelation 1.1 wrote:

Truly I say to you, filthy and most unworthy sinner, that I saw, greatly magnified, a ball around which flew several tiny balls as if in a haze, but the LORD did not allow me to know the position, speed and direction of each with full accuracy. And it mystified me greatly, but I trust that the LORD has reasons to hide this from me. So the LORD, in his infinite wisdom, took pity upon my mortal soul and commanded me to write that the energy pertaining unto this collection of balls is equal to its mass times the speed of light unto itself, though I know not what the LORD means by this strange incantation.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

Fair enough I just wasn't sure if your view was that people were thicker back then, since that's one of the arguments that's trotted out regularly by believers to explain why the bible doesn't contain anything we wouldn't expect it to contain.

Not thick, just more ignorant by in large.

coffee_cake

Galvasean wrote: »

Not thick, just more ignorant by in large.

by and large

marienbad

Peregrinus wrote: »

We don’t know that. Or, at any rate, we don’t know it from this text. What we know from this text is that the writer(s) which produced it, and the (probably later) generations who came to regard it as inspired scripture, believed that God wasn’t OK with homosexual acts. Which raises the question, why did they believe that? What does this tell us about their understanding of God, and his relationship with his people? What does this tell us about their understanding of human sexuality? Of gender? How did this hang together with their other beliefs? What does it have to say to us, to our understanding of God, of the human condition, etc?

I know you don’t want to debate the particular subject of this text - wisely, since the discussion would inevitably be derailed into a completely different discussion which is already going on in (many) other threads. But you’ve picked an interesting example, because in those other threads that verse is often bracketed with Leviticus 19:19 - “do not wear clothing woven of two different kinds of material”. The point of the bracketing is to illustrate the inconsistency with which modern Christians receive and apply scripture. That’s a fair point to make, but it can be turned around. What it shows is that Christians don’t mechanically read and apply scripture; the notion that it is “divinely inspired” does not require that. They engage with it, by allowing it to raise questions of the kind I throw out above, and by addressing those questions. And that process results in them taking radically different views to the application of Leviticus 19:19 and, say, Leviticus 18:21 (“Do not give your children to be sacrificed to Molek”).

A prohibition on child sacrifice may seem like an ethical no-brainer to us, but that’s at least partly because we live in a world substantially formed by Judeo-Christian values. This text was produced by a society which was surrounded by societies which did practice human sacrifice and child sacrifice, and who (probably) had themselves practiced child sacrifice at an earlier stage in their history. Their determination that this was wrong, and their raising of this into an ethical principle, was a real step forward in ethical thinking.

So, in a short extract from Leviticus, we find an ethical principle with which secular society, and Christianity, would unhesitatingly agree, another which secular society and Christianity both reject out of hand and a third over which our society and, to a lesser extent, Christianity are still divided. (You think only religious people are homophobic? Think again!) The point is that the Leviticus text represents a particular stage in the development of Judeo-Christian moral thinking (and, through Christianity, western moral thinking generally). Christians and Jews believe that the Israelites did have an insight into God and his plan for the world, and that their moral thinking was a reaction to an encounter with divine revelation. Hence the memory of that encounter, as recorded in scripture, is of particular importance and is still something to be taken seriously. But they don’t believe that Leviticus represents what God wants; it represents what the people of the time thought that they discerned God to want. Hence it is something to be engaged with in the light of reason, experience, other parts of the same extended story, understanding, scientific insight, etc. Which explains why they can dispense with the commandment against mixing two fabrics, while still completely accepting and internalizing the commandment against child sacrifice.

I realize it would be a lot simpler if “divine inspiration” meant “this is exactly as it is; now shut up and do as you’re told”. And, from the atheist/sceptic/Dawkinsian perspective, this would be a lot more attractive, since refuting this view would be like shooting fish in a barrel. The awkward reality, however, is that this is not what Christians understand divine inspiration to mean.

There are those who find engaging with the gritty and nuanced reality a bit tiresome, and who prefer to pass their time pretending to shoot fish in a barrel. That’s fine, so long as they understand that they’re only pretending. Otherwise, they could be accused of being in the grip of their own particular God-delusion.

But this really dos'nt mean very much ! what is all boils down to is that the bible is just a pick-and-mix and the only issue is who gets to do the picking (men it seems) and what do they pick .

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

[
There are those who find engaging with the gritty and nuanced reality a bit tiresome, and who prefer to pass their time pretending to shoot fish in a barrel. That’s fine, so long as they understand that they’re only pretending. Otherwise, they could be accused of being in the grip of their own particular God-delusion.

And this nuanced reality is indistinguishable from the bible being a collection of bronze aged writing from fairly ignorant tyrants and their writers with no divine or supernatural guidance at all, but rather their own illogical, nonsensical imaginings about the universe.

If it's divinely inspired it should be apparent.
Instead we have special pleading and excuses that redefine "dividely inspired" to mean "look exactly like it wasn't".

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

Not thick, just more ignorant by in large.

Hard to say. Sticking my neck out, I believe that while the average punter obviously wouldn't have had access to modern facts and ideas and would therefore be substantially under-informed in comparison to a well-educated person today (or probably mildly under-informed in comparison to a thicko or even a creationist), I've never come across anything in ancient writings which suggested to me for one moment that people were, by and large, any more stupid, or any more clever, than they are now. Certainly the high points of ancient literary achievement, are, I believe, the equal of anything that's being produced today, though the quantities differ greatly.

The main differences lie in what information and thinking was available for them to build upon and particularly, I believe, in the social, literary, intellectual, administrative and cultural environments which enabled and encouraged them (or not, as the case may be). Helpful environments exist now, but formerly they generally didn't, especially when the religions controlled states to their own greasy ends.

sephir0th

Ignorant doesn't mean less intelligent

Eliot Rosewater

sephir0th wrote: »

My question was very simple, so allow me to rephrase:
Is there any text in the Bible to indicate that it is divinely inspired?

That's not the question you asked. You asked was there any evidence to suggest that the Bible "wasn't written by various people in the middle east a few thousand years ago". The answer was "erm, no" because no one suggests it wasn't written by people.

Your new question is different, and sillier. You've come on to an atheist forum asking for evidence of divine inspiration. Like, really? To me that's just circle jerkism at its finest; an excuse to have the lulz at the silly Bible.

Galvasean

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Your new question is different, and sillier. You've come on to an atheist forum asking for evidence of divine inspiration. Like, really? To me that's just circle jerkism at its finest; an excuse to have the lulz at the silly Bible.

Given the amount of religious folk that post (in great frequency) in A&A I don't see it as being a huge problem. Read through any of the threads posted in the last week and you'll find posters of many different religions who are more than happy to challenge the local atheists.

sephir0th

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Your new question is different, and sillier. You've come on to an atheist forum asking for evidence of divine inspiration. Like, really? To me that's just circle jerkism at its finest; an excuse to have the lulz at the silly Bible.

I genuinely want to know if there's anything in the Bible that suggests that it was actually divinely inspired. Christians are particularly welcome to comment, but also atheists that may have come across something.

Thanks for your valuable contribution.

sponsoredwalk

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

You've come on to an atheist forum asking for evidence of divine inspiration. Like, really? To me that's just circle jerkism at its finest; an excuse to have the lulz at the silly Bible.

This is as good a reason as any to post such a question on this forum...

Galvasean

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

This is as good a reason as any to post such a question on this forum...

Plus the Islam Forum charter strictly prohibits criticism of Islam.
All in all we've got it pretty sweet in A&A.

*remembers fondly the time when a whole bunch of Catholic 'pilgrims' came to A&A to tell us of the 'persecution' they received at the hands of the Christianity Forum moderators*

robindch

sephir0th wrote: »

Ignorant doesn't mean less intelligent

No, it roughly means "lacking knowledge", but with overtones of that lack being willful and implying a lesser degree of subtlety. As above, I don't get a sense of that from the better ancient writings, and even the gospels don't really suggest that people in general were substantially more credulous, or markedly less subtle then than now.

Peregrinus

sephir0th wrote: »

My question was very simple, so allow me to rephrase:
Is there any text in the Bible to indicate that it is divinely inspired?

Any information that could simply have not have been known by man?
Any accurate predictions for the future that could not have been simply predicted by man alone?

Not to be picky, but that’s not what we call “rephrasing” a question. That’s what we call “asking a completely different question”.

Your original question was, remember, “Has anyone ever encountered an argument that would remotely suggest the Bible wasn't written by various people in the middle east a few thousand years ago?” The mainstream Judeo-Christian view is that the Bible texts were, in fact, written, edited and compiled by various people in the middle east a few thousand years ago, and scholarly/academic opinion generally agrees. The scriptural texts themselves make a number of assertions consistent with this by, e.g., naming different authors for different texts. So, unsurprisingly, the answer to your question is “no, no such argument is advanced”.

When you then ask about divine inspiration and say that you are “rephrasing the question”, that suggests to me that the idea of divine inspiration is in some sense inconsistent with diverse human authorship. But it isn’t.

You go on to ask about apparently miraculous or impossible predictions (as evidence of divine inspiriation). Here you’re on slightly stronger ground, because a chunk of the bible is written in a mystical, apocalyptic literary genre full of symbols and coded references. You can, if you are so minded, attempt to “map” this stuff onto historical events which occurred after the text was written, and there is a tradition within Christianity which has attempted to do so.

It’s a minority tradition, though, and always has been. The mainstream view is that the bible is no more a predictor of “future history” than it is an authoritative text on past history. Biblical prophecy largely consists of extrapolating from present events and trends in a distinctly non-supernatural way - “If we don’t stop feasting and ****ing, and start paying attention to the claims of the poor and the oppressed, then we’re all going to hell in a handbasket”. (The latter phrase is metaphorical; the Israelites didn’t believe in hell, or in an afterlife.) Much the kind of thing, in fact, that economic and political commentators engage in today. The “prophecy” here lies not in miraculously foretelling the future, but in wisely analysing the present, and calling people's attention to unpleasant but enduring realities that they would prefer to overlook.

So, if “divine inspiration” depends on miraculous foretelling of future events - or on miraculous anything, in fact then, no, there’s no internal evidence in the bible texts for divine inspiration. But there are undoubtedly some in Christianity who would try to persuade you otherwise.

But the bottom line is this; I don’t see that there could be anything in scripture to prove the divine inspiration of scripture. Wouldn’t that, in effect, be appealing to the authority of the text to prove the authority of the text? And that would be a circular argument.

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

So, if “divine inspiration” depends on miraculous foretelling of future events - or on miraculous anything, in fact then, no, there’s no internal evidence in the bible texts for divine inspiration. But there are undoubtedly some in Christianity who would try to persuade you otherwise.

So then if divine inspiration does not involve any supernatural elements, why is it divine? What makes it any different to bronze age people making it up?

Peregrinus

King Mob wrote: »

So then if divine inspiration does not involve any supernatural elements, why is it divine? What makes it any different to bronze age people making it up?

Perhaps the best way I can put it is this: “divine inspiration” doesn’t mean “dictated by God”; it means “inspired by (or motivated by, or arising out of) the reality of a relationship with God”.

The mainstream Judeo-Christian view is that the Jewish people had a real encounter, a real revelation, a real relationship with God and that through that relationship they were motivated to reflection and insight, and in due course to narrative, storytelling, poetry, etc, out of which arose the various biblical texts, which in further time they “canonised” as scripture, recognising their unique importance as capturing what they discerned through that relationship.

Of course, if you don’t believe in God, or in the reality of the Jewish people’s encounter with God, then there’s no reason at all why you would accept the divine inspiration of scripture, and nothing you read in scripture is likely to change your mind. Nor should you expect that it will, or could.

Christian faith, in short, doesn’t start with scripture. People generally don’t become Christians because the bible tells them to and they believe the bible to be inspired. Rather, they believe the bible to be inspired because they’re Christians.

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

Perhaps the best way I can put it is this: “divine inspiration” doesn’t mean “dictated by God”; it means “inspired by (or motivated by, or arising out of) the reality of a relationship with God”.

The mainstream Judeo-Christian view is that the Jewish people had a real encounter, a real revelation, a real relationship with God and that through that relationship they were motivated to reflection and insight, and in due course to narrative, storytelling, poetry, etc, out of which arose the various biblical texts, which in further time they “canonised” as scripture, recognising their unique importance as capturing what they discerned through that relationship.

Of course, if you don’t believe in God, or in the reality of the Jewish people’s encounter with God, then there’s no reason at all why you would accept the divine inspiration of scripture, and nothing you read in scripture is likely to change your mind. Nor should you expect that it will, or could.

Christian faith, in short, doesn’t start with scripture. People generally don’t become Christians because the bible tells them to and they believe the bible to be inspired. Rather, they believe the bible to be inspired because they’re Christians.

Great, still doesn't answer my point.
What precisely is the difference between the above definition and it being “inspired by (or motivated by, or arising out of) the perceived but false reality of a relationship with God”?

What precisely can we use to determine that the bible isn't just the writing of people with no actual connection to the creator of the universe or anything else supernatural?
Because all your above points all appear to be describing exactly that.

This is of course accepting your special pleading and redefining "divine inspiration", which is in fact silly.

Peregrinus

King Mob wrote: »

Great, still doesn't answer my point.
What precisely is the difference between the above definition and it being “inspired by (or motivated by, or arising out of) the perceived but false reality of a relationship with God”?

Isn’t it obvious? The difference is the words added by you - “perceived but false”.

King Mob wrote: »

What precisely can we use to determine that the bible isn't just the writing of people with no actual connection to the creator of the universe or anything else supernatural?

There's nothing in the text itself which would enable you to "determine" that.

And, if your position is that there is no "creator of the universe or anything else supernatural" then there could be nothing, in the text or outside it, which would enable you to "determine" that.

The point I'm trying to get accross, King Mob, is that a belief in divine inspiration (however defined) is the outcome of faith, not a foundation for faith.

King Mob wrote: »

This is of course accepting your special pleading and redefining "divine inspiration", which is in fact silly.

Why "silly"? I'm not redefining it; if anything I'm the first person in the thread to offer a definition.

Others have perhaps assumed a definition. Asking whether there is evidence that that the bible texts were not written by human authors seems to assume a particular definition of divine inspiration, as does asking whether the bible is historically or scientifically reliable, or asking whether it contains apparently miraculous predictions. And some of those assumed definitions seem pretty silly to me, for reasons I have already pointed out. Mine, I say modestly, is a model of good sense by comparison!

dead one

sephir0th wrote: »

Passages to indicate it was please...

First i will give you passage which indicates, Bible was divinly inspired when it was revealed then i will give you passages which show corruption in bible

New International Version (NIV)
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Timothy+3%3A16-17&version=NIV

Now i tell bible itself indicates it was corrupted
GOD Almighty Said:

"How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+8%3A8&version=NIV

read above verse with context.
also See prediction of Moses in context
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2031:25-29%20&version=NIV

For I know that after my death you are sure to become utterly corrupt and to turn from the way I have commanded you. In days to come, disaster will fall on you because you will do evil in the sight of the LORD and arouse his anger by what your hands have made.”

It was that corruption of roman goverment, due to which God sent Jesus as messenger to children of Isreal... But Jews due to their corruption turn against Jesus. --- Jesus said,

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them

These laws were universal, i mean, these laws were same laws which were revealed to moses and jews changed these laws, after death of moses, for their personal interests of priesthood. ...

"The Messiah was no mealy-mouthed Messenger among the Jews. Like his predecessors Amos and Ezekiel or Isaiah and Jeremiah, he was trenchant in his condemnation of Jewish formalism and hypocrisies. His novel approach and militant preaching had created certain misgivings amongst the religious hierarchy. The Scribes and the Pharisees came to him again and again to test him as to his bona fides (His Genuineness).
To allay their suspicions that he had brought no new fangled religion, and that his was the confirmation of all the teachings that had gone before him. He says —

Think not that I am come to destroy the law (Hebrew - Torah), or the prophets: I am come not 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 (Torah), till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. HOLY BIBLE Matthew 5: 17-19

dead one

Galvasean wrote: »

Plus the Islam Forum charter strictly prohibits criticism of Islam.
All in all we've got it pretty sweet in A&A.

Plus, who is behind that Charter, not Islam, it's atheism :]

sweet dreams

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

Isn’t it obvious? The difference is the words added by you - “perceived but false”.

So how then are we to tell the two apart?

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's nothing in the text itself which would enable you to "determine" that.

And, if your position is that there is no "creator of the universe or anything else supernatural" then there could be nothing, in the text or outside it, which would enable you to "determine" that.

The point I'm trying to get accross, King Mob, is that a belief in divine inspiration (however defined) is the outcome of faith, not a foundation for faith.

Well again, had the bible actually contained something that could have only been revealed by God, say something that was at the time unknown to science (ie. was divinely inspired) then we could determine that.
But it doesn't. It looks exactly as if it was written by people who had no connection to any supernatural entity.

So the answer to both of the OP's questions, is "no"?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why "silly"? I'm not redefining it; if anything I'm the first person in the thread to offer a definition.

Others have perhaps assumed a definition. Asking whether there is evidence that that the bible texts were not written by human authors seems to assume a particular definition of divine inspiration, as does asking whether the bible is historically or scientifically reliable, or asking whether it contains apparently miraculous predictions. And some of those assumed definitions seem pretty silly to me, for reasons I have already pointed out. Mine, I say modestly, is a model of good sense by comparison!

Because your redefinition makes it pointless.
You are saying that "divine inspiration" is the exact same as God playing no detectable role in inspiring or directing what is written.
So if god is not inspiring the bible, merely what men imagine about one (which does not require him to actually exist) is, then what's actually divine about it?
How is it different to "false" divine inspirations that lead to the "wrong" religions? How is it different to imagination or delusion?

If we are to follow you redefinition, it isn't different to any of these things and does not involve god even if he existed, so how then can it be Divine?
It's precisely the same as asking for a cheeseburger without cheese. It's just a burger.

Peregrinus

King Mob wrote: »

. . . So the answer to both of the OP's questions, is "no"?

Well spotted.

King Mob wrote: »

Because your redefinition makes it pointless.

No. It makes it unprovable, but that’s not the same thing at all.

King Mob wrote: »

If we are to follow you redefinition, it isn't different to any of these things and does not involve god even if he existed, so how then can it be Divine?

You don’t get that from following my definition, King Mob. I have said explicitly that the claim of divine inspiration is a claim that the scriptural texts are rooted in an actual relationship with a real God.

King Mob

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well spotted.

So then, what's the objection to the OP's question?
There's no objective evidence to show that the bible contains any information from a supernatural source.
I believe that's the point he was making. But I fail to see yours.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. It makes it unprovable, but that’s not the same thing at all.

You don’t get that from following my definition, King Mob. I have said explicitly that the claim of divine inspiration is a claim that the scriptural texts are rooted in an actual relationship with a real God.

So then how do we tell the difference between texts that are rooted in an actual relationship with a real god, and texts that are rooted in a perceived relationship with a non-existent god?
Your definition makes it impossible to tell the difference and makes it seem like that they are the exact same thing anyway as it stems for peoples ideas about god, which is not dependant on what god is in reality or that he actually exists.
So since "divine inspiration" does not actually come from god, has nothing to do with god and can exist without god, by your definition, what then makes it "divine"?
What makes it different for regular inspiration or delusion?