Posted on 12/06/2001 6:32:57 AM PST by Weatherman123
What about the books that are not included in the Bible. Are they divinely inspired and if not, why not?
What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Are they divinely inspired?
Were some books inspired by the Catholics but uninspired after the Reformation?
Is the King James version of the OT more or less inspired than the Torah?
If we were all liberals we would all be at the NOW rally :>(
Just don't get tied into one opinion on scripture girl..read!
Blessings
It's not silly. Your very soul depends on Genesis story being true. Let me offer a little logic in this regard: If Adam and Eve are mere allegory or myth, then there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need for a Savior; if there is no need for a Savior; then Jesus Christ becomes irrelevant and there is no sin now; if there is no sin, then why do catholics go to confession every Sunday?
I don't believe God created the universe as described. I believe the creation story is a myth that helped people understand the beginning of time, the world, and human kind. Of course you can't apply physical contraints to God. The one thing I DO KNOW about God is that he is beyond my comprehension and beyond the comprehension of any mortal.
Because someone else (perhaps Joshua) redacted the Torah does not mean the Torah was not compiled by Moses. Take a modern day example, for instance:
Paul Little wrote some good apologetics books, such as "Know why you believe". Mr. Little later died and his wife, Mary, "redacted" some of his books, telling of Mr. Little's death. Does that mean Paul Little did not write or compile his books? No. Of course not.
I can't. It's a plausible scenario. I just don't agree with it. :) I don't believe it's the same writer. I (and many others) can hear two distinct voices. Not just in Genesis, but through out the Pentatuch. But your scenario makes sense as well, if you don't believe in the theory of mutliple writers.
Flash! I have some new information for the world. 2+2=4
I think for many people, myself included, when it comes to the Bible it's either all or nothing. Either the Bible is divinely inspired or it's not. Either it's the Word of God, or it's not. Picking and choosing what we do and do not like out of the Bible is a dangerous path to take, because it's in man's nature to only accept the easy things, and to throw away those things that we most need to hear.
Your example is a classic. The easy path is just to divide up the Bible and say, well this is different so therefore even though the Bible says later on that these things were written by a particular person, it's easier to just divide it up among several different authors. Your example follows the famous (or infamous, IMO) JDEP (or whatever it's called, I forget the initials) framework for divying up various books of the Old Testament. What that particular theory does, ultimately, is deny the unity of the Bible, and the miraculous aspects of the writing and preservation of the text itself. It also denies the fullness and multi-faceted nature of God and implies that man's "perception" of God is what's important by elevating supposedly different writers' perceptions and understanding of God into a position of authority rather than accepting God as the ultimate authority over His own word...
-penny
This is arrogant. How do you know how God created the universe ? In addition, if you agree that the bible was inspired by God and if God is all powerfull, why would he let his story be told in error ?
Are you sure you understand Genesis 1 and 2 fully ? Are you sure you understand just how the world was created ? Even scientists are not sure but you know better ?
Humble yourself and you will do much better at your bible studies.
The following is a larger portion of text from chapter 2. Please note the areas in bold.
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested[1] from all his work.
3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens--
5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth[2] and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth[3] and there was no man to work the ground,
6 but streams[4] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground--
7 the LORD God formed the man[5] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.
9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground--trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters.
Obviously, to place a man in the garden, it had to be there first. The "had planted" followed the verse about "forming" the man. Sequentially, then, the garden came first....as did the streams.
Thus, point 2 of your theory topples. And with it the entire theory.
So truth as a whole is not fixed, but dependent upon your view of it and how we as a people have 'evolved'. From that standpoint, you could justify X42's actions as 'well it was HIS view of the truth'
Point well made, but it made you LOL, so it was worth it. I'm just in that kind of mood today. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.