Where does it say there is a "need" for them?
When Holy Scripture is called inspired, what is meant is that God divinely influences the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God.
Who says? Christians are not of the same opinion what "inspired" means. Of course there is no "proof" of any kind that any of it is "inspired".
Just because Paul insists "all writings" are "God-breathed" doesn't make them so, whatever it means. He coined the term, and it's mentioned nowhere else in the whole Greek Bible, nor is there a Hebrew equivalent of it in the Old Testament. Nor, for that matter, is there any definition of what qualifies as scripture.
You would have it as stenographers taking dictation for a lab report.
That's precisely how the Law was transmitted to Moses—word-by-word dictation. You should not only know that (because it's in your Bible), but also believe it unquesitonably.
It’s likewise more than passing strange that you are certain that Christ went “through” Sidon for the express purpose of taking a “roundabout” route to Galilee,
I am not certain he did. I am certain the anonymous author indetified by theChurch as "Mark" ("according to tradition") says he went from Tyre to Sidon to get to Galilee because it's written that way. Whether it's ttrue or not is a different story.
The physical location of those places is such that it would be like going from Savannah to Richmond to get to Tampa! I would call that a "roundabout" trip.
yet can assert no other positive knowledge about Christ’s wanderings at that time.
I can not be certain that Christ wondered at all, or for that matter that there was anyone like that. I can be certain that some books say he wondered and that he existed. But those books cannot be independently verified. What I find more than passing strange is that some claim it to be true under such circumstances.
The one sure thing in an uncertain world. Your declarations simply aren’t credible . . .
And yours are???
This last comes from a discussion with Dawkins about his book, The God Delusion, wherein he not only declares The Judeo-Christian God to be nonexistent, but also questions the mental state of any practicing Christian.
There is no doubt that Dawkins thinks that a belief in a deity is a delusion, but he also states that one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God by any means (scientific or otherwise).
So, it remains his belief which, on the absolute scale of things (i.e. God either exists or doesn't) is as (un)believable as yours is. So, why are you so scornful of his belief? It's not as if you have all the answers or, heavens!, any proof either.
In other venues Dawkins has gone so for as to propose that parents should not be allowed to teach their children in religious practices until the age of 16, and that any who enroll their children in church should have their children taken from them by the state.
That's why I don't like Dawkins. He has an ax to grind and is on a crusade of sorts.
He has been, then, misspeaking most every day of his adult life.
It's hypocrisy to accuse someone of the very thing everyone is guilty of.
Bait and switch. You take what I say in one context and then propose the response in another context. Such is the nature of propaganda and what propagandists do.
“That's precisely how the Law was transmitted to Moses—word-by-word dictation.”
The Ten Commandments, inscribed in stone, as “dictation”? I was not speaking of ten commandments inscribed in stone. I was speaking of the writing of the many books of Holy Scripture. Again, you take what I say in one context and then propose the response in another context.
“I am certain the anonymous author identified by the Church as "Mark" ("according to tradition") says he went from Tyre to Sidon to get to Galilee because it's written that way.”
”to get to” huh. Where did you get the idea for that tortured interpretation? Errantskeptics.org?
Citation please.
New International Version?
“Then Jesus left the vicinity of Tyre and went through Sidon, down to the Sea of Galilee and into the region of the Decapolis.” To get to?
New Living Translation?
“Jesus left Tyre and went up to Sidon before going back to the Sea of Galilee and the region of the Ten Towns.” To get to?
English Standard Version?
“Then he returned from the region of Tyre and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, in the region of the Decapolis.” To get to?
New American Standard Bible?
“Again He went out from the region of Tyre, and came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee, within the region of Decapolis.” To get to?
International Standard Version?
“Then Jesus left the territory of Tyre and passed through Sidon towards the Sea of Galilee, in the territory of the Decapolis.” To get to?
GOD'S WORD® Translation?
“Jesus then left the neighborhood of Tyre. He went through Sidon and the territory of the Ten Cities to the Sea of Galilee.” To get to?
King James Bible?
“And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.” To get to?
American King James Version?
“And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came to the sea of Galilee, through the middle of the coasts of Decapolis.” To get to?
American Standard Version?
“And again he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis.” To get to?
Bible in Basic English?
“And again he went out from Tyre, and came through Sidon to the sea of Galilee, through the country of Decapolis.” To get to?
Douay-Rheims Bible?
“And again going out of the coasts of Tyre, he came by Sidon to the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.” To get to?
Darby Bible Translation?
“And again having left the borders of Tyre and Sidon, he came to the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.” To get to?
English Revised Version?
"And again he went out from the borders of Tyre, and came through Sidon unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis." To get to?
Webster's Bible Translation?
“And again, departing from the borders of Tyre and Sidon, he came to the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the borders of Decapolis.” To get to?
Weymouth New Testament?
“Returning from the neighbourhood of Tyre, He came by way of Sidon to the Lake of Galilee, passing through the district of the Ten Towns.” To get to?
World English Bible?
“Again he departed from the borders of Tyre and Sidon, and came to the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the region of Decapolis.” To get to?
Young's Literal Translation?
“And again, having gone forth from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.” To get to?
Pathetic.
When I observe that your declarations simply aren’t credible, you respond, “And yours are???”
You’re not certain? Apparently you doubt the credibility of yours, since you voice no objection to my observation, save to seek to include my declarations with your own.
“There is no doubt that Dawkins thinks that a belief in a deity is a delusion, but he also states that one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God by any means (scientific or otherwise).”
Dawkins: “I think that it (the existence of a supernatural creator) is a scientific question. My answer is no.”
It seems, then, that Dawkins has a very large contradiction to explain. He cannot simply retreat to the excuse that he thinks, or that it is his belief that the existence of a supernatural creator is a scientific question. His background, his training, and his (deserved) reputation as an eminent evolutionary biologist, precludes the possibility that he would hold with intellectual honesty such beliefs or thoughts.
(Dawkins) “has an ax to grind and is on a crusade of sorts.”
Really? That runs contrary to your above assertion that Dawkins has stated that “one cannot prove or disprove the existence of God . . .” thereby separating his beliefs from his more positive declarations. When you opine, as you have in this thread, that morality comes only from human heads usually according to their narrowly defined interests; that any idea to the contrary is the product of childish adults in need maybe of some serious mental health counseling; when you suggest that talking donkeys (and presumably other OT “fantastic stories”) are proof of the principal that a lie, told often enough, acquires a semblance of truth by virtue of sheer repetition; it can hardly be thought that you are rejecting Dawkins, but rather that you are embracing his own thoughts similarly expressed. Now you wish to put some distance between he and yourself?
I reject your insistence that “fairy tales” are central to Biblical Instruction and must be accepted as a common assumption. We share neither common assumptions, nor anything like them. Discussion is not possible.
“It's hypocrisy to accuse someone of the very thing everyone is guilty of.”
Then don’t do it. Look to the beam in your own eye, Pilgrim.