Chris,

Even in scientific literature, you can find both high quality science/research as well as poor quality ones. In a Journal you may or may not look at the submitter before you accept, but in the end you most likely will have a set of requirements by which to judge what is submitted in order to meet your standards, that is if you were to desire a high standard journal.

The compilers of the bible sets out a very high standard to reflect its content, the inspired word of God.

I do not have technical expertise to discuss about the various writings such as The Shepherd and why it did not meet the standard. However I would be willing to interact with you if you have questions about what *is* included in the bible. There is much there already for discussion in relation to why you became a skeptic (I presume).

For me, there is diversity and unity in the bible, when I read it, its like seeing something wonderful that I just want to share it with somebody... you know, like if you saw a shooting star, you think wow! and immediately turn to your friend "did you see that?" wondering if s/he shared the experience.

The truth is not everyone will share the same experience, nor value it the same.

Oxyrhynchus wrote (View Post): › Chris, Even in scientific literature, you can find both high quality science/research as well as poor quality ones. In a Journal you may or may not look at the submitter before you accept, but in the end you most likely will have a set of requirements by which to judge what is submitted in order to meet your standards, that is if you were to desire a high standard journal.

The journal often sets out standards by which the reviewer is supposed to work. There are articles within the scientific literature detailing the responsibilities of peer reviewers.

Quote: › The compilers of the bible sets out a very high standard to reflect its content, the inspired word of God.

This is where your analogy breaks down. You assert "very high standards" of those who picked the books to be included in the Canon, but you don't document by the writings of those people what the standards were. Without that documentation, it's difficult to accept your claim.

Are you familiar with the history of the Councils that picked the Canon?

Quote: › I do not have technical expertise to discuss about the various writings such as The Shepherd and why it did not meet the standard.

Look at the theology. Is it consistent with the theology that is in the Bible? If you mean "The Shepherd of Hermas", then the theology is different. 1) it places too much emphasis on the guiding teaching of a woman and 2) it talks about Hermas writing down a book from the dictates of the vision. Since this was the quotations of "the lady" and not of God, the Church would not consider it holy.

Quote: › There is much there already for discussion in relation to why you became a skeptic (I presume).

Since I'm not a skeptic, how do you foresee our discussion going? You seem to think only of disagreements between believers and "skeptics".

Quote: › For me, there is diversity and unity in the bible, when I read it, its like seeing something wonderful that I just want to share it with somebody...

Aren't you supposed to share God and Jesus? The Bible is only a guide, not the principle area of concern. I submit you have the wrong thing you want to share. This board seems to be about defending the Bible. Why aren't you more concerned about defending God?

Oxyrhynchus wrote (View Post): › However, in response here is what one great Theologian said about Scripture: “The preacher must preach only the Word of Holy Scripture, for the Bible is the very Scripture of the Spirit…It cannot be otherwise, for the Scriptures are divine; in them God speaks, and they are His Word. To hear or to read the Scriptures is nothing else than to hear God.” - Luther

You need to make this a complete citation so we can check it. For instance, what is in the ellipses ("..."), what is the context, and did Luther really capitalize "Word" when referring to scripture? I suggest you read John Calvin, Luther's contemporary and the other great founder of Protestantism. Read his Commentaries on Genesis. You will find that Calvin is not so adamant.

Even better, you might want to read the Bible itself. John 1 specifically says that scriptures are NOT "His Word". The Word is Jesus. Also read Mark 10 and Matthew 14. Jesus specifically says that God does not directly speak in all of scripture. Scripture was written by men (Moses specifically in the scripture -- Deut. 24:1 -- Jesus is referring to) and that men sometimes get it wrong.

Oxy, you are advocating Biblical literalism and worship of the Bible, not God.

Oxyrhynchus wrote (View Post): › Lucaspa seem to have a very fine scientific mind and clear thinking. No offence, but it seem he has neglected his gift/training or reduced his efforts sometimes.

Well, I am a scientist. However, you need to document where I have neglected my "gift/training" rather than assert it. This is attacking me, not my arguments. Remember, ad hominem is not a valid form of argument.

Quote: › There are some 4 or 5 possible explanations available (for the genealogies) and to simply conclude that this "contradict" is premature to say the least.

Since you never gave the 4 or 5 possible explanations, we can't evaluate them. Simply because they exist doesn't mean they are valid, does it? I can't find any valid explanation for the contradictions in the geneology.

Quote: › Now where are those men who selected these two books? if they are not guilty of compiling unity, then contradictions!

As you said in a later post, the Bible isn't required to be consistent in every detail. In fact, if it were we would be suspicious of its authenticity on the points that matter -- the theology. The people who chose the books of the Canon were looking for books that matched their theology, not ones that were consistent in every detail. In particular in choosing the gospels, they wanted books that 1) were consistent with Trinity, 2) did not have childhood miracles, and 3) did not have Gnostic or Manichean influence. It was the latter that got the Gospel of Thomas excluded.

Quote: › lucaspa wrote (View Post): › The Quran claims to be dictated entirely by Allah. As I noted above, the Bible claims that Jesus is the Word. Well, what ever the romantic notions of some, the Quran was not dictated at all by Allah. Allah sent his message via an angel who called himself Jibril (Gabriel) who then "dictated" to the revered prophet, who did not write it down (he was illiterate afterall) but memorised and then recited the words from Allah.

1. You and I believe the Quran was not dictated by Allah. My point was that the Quran can make a claim similar to the Bible, so that particular "proof" isn't valid. You claim "mostly they were the recitation dictated by his followers to scribes. The sources were then compiled into a book from various pieces of written material from leaf, stone, leather and what ever else", but that claim also applies to the Bible. Therefore that particular "proof" isn't valid.

2. Mohammed wasn't illiterate. The claim is that Mohammed was not versed or trained in the particular flowery and ornamental style found in the Quran. His education was insufficient to allow Mohammed to write like this.

You got your information from this site: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/religion-islam-muslim-islamic-quran.htm It uses the same words you did.

"When reading the Qur'an , you should realize that, for all Muslims, the text you are reading is quite literally the voice of God; because the Qur'an is the direct speech of God in Arabic," http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ISLAM/QURAN.HTM

This is what I was referring to. You, I, and Western scholars may disagree with this, but it is the claim of Muslims. It is, quite literally, the same claim made in the OP and by Biblical literalists and matches the claim made by Luther you posted. So, regarding "proofs", since other scriptures make the same claim as made for the Bible, this can't be a "proof" the Bible is inspired, since we don't think the Quran or the Book of Mormon were inspired (same claim). Remember, we are discussing not the validity of the Bible, but the validity of the "proofs".

lucaspa wrote (View Post): › Well, I am a scientist. However, you need to document where I have neglected my "gift/training" rather than assert it. This is attacking me, not my arguments. Remember, ad hominem is not a valid form of argument.

My apologies if I offend, I did not intend to attack... it was an observation.

lucaspa wrote (View Post): › You got your information from this site: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/religion-islam-muslim-islamic-quran.htm It uses the same words you did.

I checked it out, but sorry, incorrect. I have not been there before. Its possible that what information you found there may have been placed there from some common source but when I wrote my reply I did not look up a website first, I simply wrote what I remembered from previous readings in the past (6 months +).

lucaspa wrote (View Post): › Oxy, you are advocating Biblical literalism and worship of the Bible, not God.

Yeah, and you should see the way I treat my favourite bible too:
1. Coffee stains
2. Food stains
3. Crease marks
4. Tears
5. Highlight marks and notes written on it
6. The occasional children's footprint
7. Squashed insect marks

lucaspa wrote (View Post): › Since I'm not a skeptic, how do you foresee our discussion going? You seem to think only of disagreements between believers and "skeptics".

Actually I was interacting with Chris in that particular post as per the salutation.

By the way, if it isn't clear already I do not worship the bible no matter what you may claim. I cannot speak nor translate German but I read somewhere that Luther said about the bible that it is like the manger in which the Christ child rests.

So the idea is that we can find Christ in it, and we bow down to Jesus, not the manger.

Oxyrhynchus wrote (View Post): › Even in scientific literature, you can find both high quality science/research as well as poor quality ones. In a Journal you may or may not look at the submitter before you accept, but in the end you most likely will have a set of requirements by which to judge what is submitted in order to meet your standards, that is if you were to desire a high standard journal. The compilers of the bible sets out a very high standard to reflect its content, the inspired word of God.

I am not claiming, nor do I believe, that the Bible's compilers had their standards set too high. If one set out to determine what is scripture, then presumably he/she would have high standards about what texts to include. Clearly not all Christian writing from the first two centuries is of the same quality.

The OP claims the Bible has the unity that it has because God caused all the individual authors to agree. My claim is that basic unity of the Bible is precisely because the Bible's compilers had certain standards about what is scripture.

The OP also states that the Bible had 40 authors and took 1800 years to write. This is impressive, and I do not dispute it. But, when you look at NT's statistics, they're not as impressive. Let me spell it out in great detail.

By my count there are 8 to 9 authors of the NT, depending on if you think Paul wrote Hebrews. We have Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Hebrew's author, James, Peter and Jude. The OT authors outnumber the NT authors roughly 3 to 1. Moreover, the NT is dominated by one author: Paul.

In my copy of the Bible, the NT spans 343 pages. Paul's epistles are 91 pages (I'm not including Hebrews), which means 26% of the pages are due to Paul.

The Gospels are a big chunk of the NT, and Paul wrote epistles. In my Bible the epistles span 131 pages. Paul wrote roughly 70% of the epistles. Considering that the epistles are mostly teaching, Paul has an overwhelming influence on the doctrinal claims of the NT.

The books that are Pauline (Luke, Acts, Hebrews, and Paul's epistles) span 190 pages, or 56% of pages. If you're in the "liberal" camp, you'd probably consider John's Gospel Pauline too.

I understand that counting pages is only a rough estimate, and you might get different results in different Bibles. Despite that, it's clear that Paul is responsible for a majority of the NT. It's not hard to believe that Paul and his followers would have unity in their writings.

If you, believe that the Bible was completed in the first century, you have the NT finished in less than 70 years. That is one to two lifetimes. (I don't know what the average life span was in the first century.) So the 1800 years is OK when you're looking at the whole Bible, but misleading when discussion the NT.

This is why, without even going into specific apparent contradictions, I don't find the unity argument cogent.

Oxyrhynchus wrote (View Post): › I do not have technical expertise to discuss about the various writings such as The Shepherd and why it did not meet the standard.

Neither do I. I'm going off the reason Bart Ehrman gave in his book Lost Christianities. I brought up The Shepherd because it was accepted as scripture by some orthodox Christians. I didn't want anyone to think I was saying that works like The Gospel of Judas where unfairly left out of the Bible.

Oxyrhynchus wrote (View Post): › However I would be willing to interact with you if you have questions about what *is* included in the bible. There is much there already for discussion in relation to why you became a skeptic (I presume).

I am a former Christian, and I used to hold to Biblical inerrancy. I am here for discussion, but I don't have many questions about the Bible's contents per se. E.g. what does this or that doctrine mean? I do have some issues with some texts that I'd be curious to hear a response too. Perhaps I'll post one soon.

Oxyrhynchus wrote (View Post): › For me, there is diversity and unity in the bible, when I read it, its like seeing something wonderful that I just want to share it with somebody... you know, like if you saw a shooting star, you think wow! and immediately turn to your friend "did you see that?" wondering if s/he shared the experience. The truth is not everyone will share the same experience, nor value it the same.

This is great to hear (I say this with all seriousness). I hope you never loose that feeling, no matter what you believe about the book. Even as someone who doesn't accept the Bible as God's word, I find many interesting and useful passages in it. There's plenty to ponder. I also recognize there's many anachronism, but this is true of any ancient book.

Chris,

I think its clear that the OP did not intend to distinguish the NT as something apart or separate from what is called the "Bible", and that even if there was only one author in the NT the statement holds: That the bible was writen by some number of authors over a span of 1500 - 1800 years and there is unity in its message. No comparison was intended between OT and NT, the OP said "bible" which means both.

Chris wrote (View Post): › My claim is that basic unity of the Bible is precisely because the Bible's compilers had certain standards about what is scripture.

Yes, I think we are saying the same thing at that general level.

Chris wrote (View Post): › The OP also states that the Bible had 40 authors and took 1800 years to write. This is impressive, and I do not dispute it. But, when you look at NT's statistics, they're not as impressive. Let me spell it out in great detail.

This is the exact place where I think you have misunderstood the OP's first point. No comparison was intended nor required.

Chris wrote (View Post): › I am a former Christian, and I used to hold to Biblical inerrancy. I am here for discussion, but I don't have many questions about the Bible's contents per se. E.g. what does this or that doctrine mean? I do have some issues with some texts that I'd be curious to hear a response too. Perhaps I'll post one soon.

Who chose first? I chose God or God chose me? deep issues.

1Pe 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people to be his very own and to proclaim the wonderful deeds of the one who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.

So I have no doubt at all that the one who chose you and called you out of darkness into his marvelous light is faithful. If you indeed have been brought to his light then I would turn to this passage:

Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me.
Joh 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand.

"No one will snatch them out of my hand" to me is a powerful statement declared to that battle between God and Satan.

These are some of the "wow" I speak of... so much so that I agree with those who say "once saved is always saved". So "former Christian" is only a possibility for me if we are at variance in the meaning of of the word "Christian".

Oxyrhynchus wrote (View Post): › I think its clear that the OP did not intend to distinguish the NT as something apart or separate from what is called the "Bible", and that even if there was only one author in the NT the statement holds: That the bible was writen by some number of authors over a span of 1500 - 1800 years and there is unity in its message. No comparison was intended between OT and NT, the OP said "bible" which means both.

It is clear. I admitted as much in a previous post. I hope I didn't appear to be saying otherwise.

Yes, the OT & NT are both considered scripture; but to many Christians the NT has superseded the OT, and most Christians are far more familiar with the NT; at least in my experience. For what it was worth, I thought I thought I'd emphasize the NT's statistics.

Oxyrhynchus wrote (View Post): › Who chose first? I chose God or God chose me? deep issues. 1Pe 2:9 But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people to be his very own and to proclaim the wonderful deeds of the one who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. So I have no doubt at all that the one who chose you and called you out of darkness into his marvelous light is faithful. If you indeed have been brought to his light then I would turn to this passage: Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. Joh 10:28 I give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them out of my hand. "No one will snatch them out of my hand" to me is a powerful statement declared to that battle between God and Satan. These are some of the "wow" I speak of... so much so that I agree with those who say "once saved is always saved". So "former Christian" is only a possibility for me if we are at variance in the meaning of of the word "Christian".

I've posted on other Christian forums, and they refused to believe that I was a Christian. They kept insisting I stopped believing because someone, i.e. in my former church, gave me false teaching. So, I thank you for your considerate words.

What I mean by "former Christian" is I no longer believe in the tenants of any branch of Christianity, and so I no longer consider myself a Christian.

Most Christians believe some metaphysical change occurred in a believer, and you think this change still exists in me. That's fine, but, because of my disbelief, it's of little concern to me. I guess what I'm saying is, I don't know how to respond to what you've said.

If God wants to turn on the light again, so to speak, then I don't know what's stopping him. It wasn't easy giving up my faith, so I'd actually welcome it.