The Bible not the Word of God.

**+Donny** · 07-22-2005, 04:16 PM

Well, this could get interesting.

patrick1 · 07-22-2005, 04:36 PM

Quote:

dark tofu

Jude:9
But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

well what was he supposed to say, the bible rebuke you, lol

Vituperator · 07-22-2005, 05:17 PM

[QUOTE][QUOTE=Dark Tofu]First and foremost let me say
I am a Christian. I was saved in the 4th grade and have been a follower of him ever since. I believe in him as strongly as i ever did. Originally i wanted to believe that all of the Bible was the Word of God. After a while the spirit i feel helped me with this. Now listen to this statement and you should agree, We are Christians not Biblists so please come to this with an open mind. And if you attack something, attack the post that is below not my faith as a Christian, Please. Now to the issue i am posting about.

Why I believe the Bible isn't the Word of God

Now, first i shall point out an obvious reason

The obvious implication of this verse is that God did not inspire it. Also,

Says that God did inspire this, but why would he need to say this in the middle of his letter, if all of it was God breathed? This means two things, at least one verse in the Bible is not God inspired and thus the Bible may contain the Word of God, second it shows that Pauls letter wasn't entirely God inspired why would he have to state that one verse is if he thought that his whole letter was? He obviously didn't think most of his letter was God breathed so why should we?

The canonical book of Jude describes an event (the quarrel between Michael and Satan for the body of Moses) that only occurs in an non-canonical scripture (the "Ascension of Moses", which has been lost to time but mentioned by church fathers), and treats it as the Word of God. It could be argued (weakly) that the body of Moses was a metaphor for the Law, and not a reference to the Ascension of Moses. Some theologians have tried to do this, but to do that they disregard the intent of the author of Jude. What this verse suggests is that a canonical book calls a non-canonical book inspired. This right there means that the canon HAS to be wrong.

There's another instance of this phenomenon in the book of Jude.
Right there we have a canonical book quoting a non-canonical book, thus the canon must be wrong. Here is

For this reason, some of the early church fathers believed Jude wasn't inspired. And some of them thought that both Jude and Enoch were inspired. The book of Enoch is quoted indirectly many times in the New Testament.

Points people normally use to dispute my points

Some apologists who are aware of the Enoch/Jude argument try to argue that Paul quoted a pagan to make a point in his sermon on Mars Hill:

However, they miss two points. Comparing a prophet with a poet is like comparing apples and oranges. Besides, even if the pagan had been a prophet in the Greek polytheistic religion, it doesn't matter, the prophet still wouldn't have been inspired by God.

So Enoch's prophecies would be legitimate. In fact, Enoch was SO holy that he didn't die, God took him away, a kindness only granted to one other human, Elijah (who was also a prophet).
It's inescapable, if you believe that the book of Jude is the Word of God, you have to believe that the book of Enoch is the Word of God. (You don't even have to believe in Jude's inspiration to believe in Enoch, the book of Enoch fits in too perfectly with Daniel and Revelation to *NOT* be inspired.)

Another Verse used is

What they miss is that the Bible wasn't even entirely written when this verse was written. "All Scripture" in this sense refers to the Old Testament, and not to a Biblical canon that wasn't chosen or even entirely written yet.

Another

Quote:

Revelation 22:18-19
I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his sharein the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Quote:

They ignore the actual words in there though, "this book" does not mean the Bible, which had yet to be canonized, it merely means "the book of the Revelation of John." Changing the words written in that book is the sin, not finding fault with the canon.

Another

The argument used here is that Peter, who was given apostolic authority by Jesus Himself, bestows said apostolic authority on Paul's works, therefore Paul's writings are inspired because Peter says so.

There are several problems with this.

1) Apostolic authority doesn't exist. The main verse used to justify it is

But looking at the context reveals that Peter was "the rock of the church" not because he was Peter, but because he had been the one to utter what is the central tenet of Christianity, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, the son of the living God.

Also, Peter does some things described in

(also described in Acts 15:1-23, far too long to write out, look it up on your own) That demonstrates that he had no true divine authority beyond that which all Christians have, the Word of God. Obviously apostolic authority is a joke, used only to prop up two things, the Roman Catholic papacy and the Biblical canon.

2) 2 Peter was probably forged. If you look at the basic makeups of both Jude and 2 Peter, they follow the same course and say basically the same things, except for that little bit about Paul's works tacked on at the end. For this reason, many theologians believe 2 Peter was a forgery, written by an anonymous Christian using Peter's name in order to get Paul's works accepted as Scripture. A forgery equals a lie equals not the Word of God, so ultimately whatever 2 Peter says is moot.

What I do believe in and why

Basically whatever God says is the Word of God(No brainer there) Thus only things that God spoke should be considered the Word of God or Prophesies.
Here are all the books and the whys

Genesis------|
Exodus |
Leviticus | because they were written prophetically by Moses
Numbers |
Deuteronomy-|

Any quotes like the Lord God says, "something or another" in between Joshua and Job. Because these are just Historical books.

Psalms because it prophesied Christ several times

Ecclesiastes---|
Song of Songs | because Soloman was specifically inspired by God
Proverbs ------|

Enoch and all other books of prophesy throughout OT (Isaiah-Malachi)
because they were prophets.

The words of Christ in the four canonical Gospels

Revelation because it is prophetic

Whatever bits that are scattered in Paul's writings that are specifically by God or any of his prophetic pieces (such as the endtimes stuff in 2 Thessalonians)

-Some of the Apocrypha and other non-canonical books (undetermined yet; I hold out the possibility of some of them being inspired)

So yeah that's what I believe. Please approach it with an open mind, and pray about it. Acknowledging that the Biblical canon is flawed is hard to do, I know, I've been there. But remember that we're called Christians and not Biblists for a reason.

It is good to be open minded, yet it is not wise to be so open minded that the brains fall out.

You simply cannot "pick and choose" what you wish to believe. The Bible is either all true, or it is a lie. It is as simple as that. You can't get sweet and sour water from the same spring. 2Ti 3:16 Says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" Either believe it or don't...

You can believe as you choose. Personally, I choose to believe the word of God.

Lightknight · 07-22-2005, 05:43 PM

You are saying that just because there are some verses that aren't God's direct word that the Bible can therefore not be considered His word? I do not see that. Paul explicitely said what was not God's word so that we would know it was only his suggestion. What would you say about the rest of that letter? As for Jude referencing an event from another book, why couldn't it have been the word of God too?

ddts · 07-22-2005, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vituperator

You simply cannot "pick and choose" what you wish to believe. The Bible is either all true, or it is a lie. It is as simple as that. You can't get sweet and sour water from the same spring. 2Ti 3:16 Says, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" Either believe it or don't...

Obviously what he believes is that All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. But the twist is that he believes the books he mentioned in his post are not actually scripture.

MrCrabby · 07-22-2005, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dark tofu

The canonical book of Jude describes an event (the quarrel between Michael and Satan for the body of Moses) that only occurs in an non-canonical scripture (the "Ascension of Moses", which has been lost to time but mentioned by church fathers), and treats it as the Word of God. It could be argued (weakly) that the body of Moses was a metaphor for the Law, and not a reference to the Ascension of Moses. Some theologians have tried to do this, but to do that they disregard the intent of the author of Jude. What this verse suggests is that a canonical book calls a non-canonical book inspired. This right there means that the canon HAS to be wrong.

So, by your reasoning, we can pick and choose from the canon, but it's "all-or-nothin" when it comes to non-canonical books?

Dark Tofu · 07-22-2005, 10:57 PM

Dark Tofu · 07-22-2005, 11:15 PM

MrCrabby · 07-23-2005, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

OK as i see it you all either didn't read my entire thing or just don't have an open mind, the canon was put together by a group of men who put together what they thought was correct. The Bible is a collection of inspired books, no an inspired collection of books! Also please just bash the article not me.

Keep in mind that the formation of the canon took a couple hundred years. It was not "put together."

Quote:

4th, To McCrabby, I do not believe in all or nothing with the non canonical books I completely don't believe the Books of Morman, Jubilees, and many others, that i would rather not get into right now. So i'm not only picking and choosing from the Bible and all of the non canonical books, but i am picking and choosing from them all.

You said:

Quote:

if you believe that the book of Jude is the Word of God, you have to believe that the book of Enoch is the Word of God.

I don't think I'm taking that quote out of context, if so, I apologize.

I also apologize if I'm taking too much of your time.....just one more:

Quote:

What they miss is that the Bible wasn't even entirely written when this verse was written. "All Scripture" in this sense refers to the Old Testament, and not to a Biblical canon that wasn't chosen or even entirely written yet.

Does the sovereignty of God not pertain also to future events?

Dark Tofu · 07-23-2005, 12:28 AM

Dark Tofu · 07-23-2005, 01:08 AM

Dark Tofu · 07-23-2005, 01:46 AM

CaribouMaster · 07-23-2005, 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Tofu

Also if anyone has any non canonical books they think legit and have reasons please post them and let me know why.

Well, IMO, there's the sticking point. To a degree, I see Enoch and books like that as very quotable in the Word of God. There are truths to be found, both historical and religious, in many extra-biblical books. I see an apostle being divinely inspired to quote the right passage from the right book for use in Scripture as on pretty much the same level as being divinely inspired to write something without a quote.

On the issue of the selection of the canon, someone who has studied the history more can step in, but the best phrasing I've heard for it is that the selection "committee" (I'm such a baptist) was inerrant, not infallible. Meaning that though the men themselves were human and therefore able to fail at things (fallible) in the case of the final product they did not (inerrancy).