|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 7, 2009 14:29:59 GMT -4
How can you make the judgement "not inspired" when you don't have the text available to read? How do you know what was in Samuel the Seer, Gad the Seer, Nathan the prophet, etc. are duplicated in the books of Samuel we do have? Yes they are mentioned in the Bible, but how can we tell that they didn't write anything else? I said I believe Samuel the seer is the same person as Samuel the prophet and the author of the first part of I Samuel and that Gad and Nathan completed the books of Samuel after his death. Samuel the seer, Gad the Seer and Nathan the prophet were never separate books and that it was common knowledge at the time that those 3 wrote the books of Samuel. How do we know they didn't write anything else? I don't know that we can tell. As to all the supposed lost books, if they are lost they weren't always lost. The texts were at one time available and they were not considered by the religious authorities of the time to be inspired by God and were not therefore preserved. Ahijah and Iddo may be exceptions. I can't tell. So what's your point? You don't have the texts either. There are certain tests a writing must pass in order to be considered inspired. Is there a book you consider to be inspired (still in existence)? Is that why we're doing this?
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 7, 2009 0:41:47 GMT -4
I followed the footnote for that quote and it led to a page offering to sell a CD on the subject, so we'll have to live without it. I guess you'll have to find your own refrences if you want to show it is quoted in the New Testament then. I certainly don't know of any. I said the book was controversial when I brought it up in the first place. So far we have a vague handwave that "it's quoted everywhere in the NT" without any actual examples, and a rabbi who lived in Christian times but believed man named Simon bar Kokhba was the Messiah who basically says it is the most holy of songs because he says so. Not exactly a strong case. We're pretty much back where we started on this topic: Why is the Song of Solomon in the Bible? I didn't "handwave." Short of reading a lot of commentary and regurgitating it back to you, at this time I don't have my own answer, which I already said. What I posted wasn't offered as "proof." Please give me your opinion on why it's there. Meanwhile, this is my take on your list of books referenced in the bible, but not included in it. And I haven't finished yet. Wars of the Lord - a history of battles fought (not inspired) Book of Jasher - apocryphal history (not inspired) Acts of Solomon - history of Solomon's reign (not inspired) Samuel the Seer - refers to writings of Samuel (in the bible) Gad the Seer & Nathan the Prophet: Samuel died after annointing David, but before he reigned. After his death, Gad and Nathan were prophets under David and they completed Samuel. These were the books of Samuel and Gad and Nathan--not 2 lost books, but three authors of the inspired writings known as I and II Samuel. Possible earlier epistle to Ephesians - No. It IS Ephesians. Epistle to Church at Laodicea - Ephesians again. That leaves Ahijah, Iddo, Shemaiah, Jehu, Sayings of Seers and possible earlier epistle to Corinthians. I'm working on these.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 6, 2009 21:13:56 GMT -4
This book is inspired; it was part of the Scriptures when Jesus Christ was here on the earth. He put His imprimatur on the entire volume when He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken." (John 10:35). Some say that it is not quoted in the New Testament, yet there are fragments everywhere. Also I would like to see some specific refrences as to where fragments of the Song of Solomon can be found in other scriptrues. I followed the footnote for that quote and it led to a page offering to sell a CD on the subject, so we'll have to live without it. I posted that quote because it was interesting and new to me. I thought you might find it interesting as well. Trust doesn't enter the picture. That quote goes to show that there was/is conflict about whether or not this book is inspired.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 5, 2009 16:47:55 GMT -4
No, I'm not claiming that. Some prophecies were short ranged, some medium ranged (which would establish the person as a prophet because the prophecies came to pass during his lifetime), and some were long range and have yet to be fulfilled. There is proof that the prophecies preceded the events. They're called history books, and we also know approximately when the prophetic books were written as well. There were many prophecies concerning Jesus and He certainly couldn't arrange events to fulfill all of them. You can't see how accurate the biblical prophecies are from my posts. You have to study the bible as well as history. If you're in a hurry, you can also search the web for articles dealing with the subject. An in-depth discussion of this topic ought to go on a new thread. I think you're tying yourself up in knots here. You claim you know the Bible is inspired because of the 100% accurate prophesies, but if some of the prophesies haven't yet been fulfilled, how do you know if they are accurate? Plus, there is still the question of how you know if parts that don't contain prophesies are inspired. If a prohpet's fulfilled prophecies are accurate there's every reason to believe that his future prophecies will be accurate as well. As to your other question, that's what Jason and I are currently discussing. Stay tuned to see if I can come up with an answer--but it's not going to be quick. modified to add this: I neglected to mention that some of the prophets' long-range prophecies have been fulfilled. Previously all I said was long range prohecies were yet to be fulfilled. Just wanted to clarify that.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 5, 2009 3:30:05 GMT -4
Jason, I'm still reading.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 5, 2009 3:28:22 GMT -4
No, I'm not claiming that. Some prophecies were short ranged, some medium ranged (which would establish the person as a prophet because the prophecies came to pass during his lifetime), and some were long range and have yet to be fulfilled. There is proof that the prophecies preceded the events. They're called history books, and we also know approximately when the prophetic books were written as well. There were many prophecies concerning Jesus and He certainly couldn't arrange events to fulfill all of them. You can't see how accurate the biblical prophecies are from my posts. You have to study the bible as well as history. If you're in a hurry, you can also search the web for articles dealing with the subject. An in-depth discussion of this topic ought to go on a new thread.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 4, 2009 0:20:57 GMT -4
Prophesy. The books of the bible contain detailed information about the future--a future only the true God could foretell. No other religion's holy books do this. The prophecies in the bible are detailed and of the ones which have already been fulfilled, they were fulfilled with amazing accuracy. That's a very strong indication that the books of the bible were inspired by God. What about other prophesies? Science makes predictions that are far more specific that those in scriptures, but doesn't claim any divine inspiration. The fans of Nostradamus claim that his prophesies have been fulfilled. Astrologers claim the occasional success. Where do you draw the line? Scientists can predict things according to known laws. They're not really prophecies about the future in the way I mean, where the prophets aren't speaking according to the laws of science. Yeah, I know Nostradamus has a lot of fans. I find his prophecies to be so vague that they can be interpreted almost any way you like. He also has a high failure rate. Likewise for astrologers on the failure rate. When God gave the law to Moses He told him that if the words a prophet speaks don't come to pass, then that prophet is not speaking for God. God also told the Hebrews that if a prophet's words were untrue, they were to take him out and stone him. God drew the line at 100% accuracy. There are some amazing fulfilled prophecies in the bible.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 3, 2009 2:08:31 GMT -4
It isn't just one thing. THE condition is that the writing be inspired by God. One of the proofs that an author is speaking for God is fulfilled prophecy. Good. I think I can agree with that general definition. Now, how can you tell when a writing was inspired by God, apart from prophecy? How can I tell? You'd get a better answer if you asked how I can tell something is not inspired. The best answer I can give you is Jesus Himself validated the entire OT and promised His disciples that He would bring all things to their remembrance, in anticipation of their writing the books of the NT. Not having my own answer, here's an excerpt from an article by Chuck Missler at khouse.org: Rabbi Akiba, the leading rabbi of the Bar Kochba revolt (132-135 A.D.) is quoted in the Mishnah:
In the entire world there is nothing to equal the day on which the Song of Songs was given to Israel. All the writings are holy, but the Song of Songs is most Holy.6
(Due to his support, all questions about the place of the Song of Songs in the canon of the Scriptures were silenced.)
This book is inspired; it was part of the Scriptures when Jesus Christ was here on the earth. He put His imprimatur on the entire volume when He said, "The Scripture cannot be broken." (John 10:35). Some say that it is not quoted in the New Testament, yet there are fragments everywhere. Just because there are references in the bible to other books it doesn't mean that that book is inspired. The obvious answer is that those books were never considered inspired and were therefore not included.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 3, 2009 1:28:57 GMT -4
This thread is for the discussion of faith v. works. It's natural that other topics will be touched upon in that discussion, but gillian, you are going into an area that isn't dealing with the faith/works topic. Why don't you start a new thread? Because there's no point. It doesn't matter what my sources are; you've made up your mind. It doesn't matter to you what prophecies may or may not have been fulfilled by/in the Bible. It doesn't matter what prophecies have been fulfilled by other religions. I've tried giving you information before, and you don't want to hear it unless it agrees with your own worldview. If that's what you think, why do you bother to respond to my posts? You claim to have secret knowledge that Christians don't have--and which would surprise us if we learned what it was, but you never say what it is. Generally, the posts you direct at me are just to attribute evil thoughts and motives to anything I say.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 1, 2009 22:02:35 GMT -4
This thread is for the discussion of faith v. works. It's natural that other topics will be touched upon in that discussion, but gillian, you are going into an area that isn't dealing with the faith/works topic. Why don't you start a new thread?
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 1, 2009 21:53:27 GMT -4
Which is it, DH, is the condition only that it be inspired by God, or that it be inspired byGod and also contain prophecy? Or is it only that it contain prophecy? There are several books in the Bible that don't contain any prophecies. Are they scripture? Also, the LDS scriptures contain several prophecies that have been fulfilled. Are they therefore scripture? What about the books mentioned in the Bible but missing from it, as I mentioned earlier? It isn't just one thing. THE condition is that the writing be inspired by God. One of the proofs that an author is speaking for God is fulfilled prophecy. These prophesies are not contained in every book, as you very well know. The books of the bible are an integrated message that spans centuries, yet the writers are in agreement with one another--and sometimes they don't have access to one another's writings. Would you like to discuss one of the books that doesn't contain prophecy to see why it is considered inspired? Go ahead, tell me about the LDS scriptural prophecies and I'll let you know what I think. Give me a list of the missing books. I'll go through them with you, to the extent I'm able.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 1, 2009 21:38:14 GMT -4
Prophesy. The books of the bible contain detailed information about the future--a future only the true God could foretell. No other religion's holy books do this. The prophecies in the bible are detailed and of the ones which have already been fulfilled, they were fulfilled with amazing accuracy. That's a very strong indication that the books of the bible were inspired by God. This is unbelievable. Much of the "prophecy" of the Bible is vague enough so that it could be used to predict anything. Please give me some examples of prophecies you find vague Why don't you explain what you mean about the circumstances involved in the writing of Isaiah? Including why you think he was referring to a woman living in his time? I'm interested in your sources. Also, what gospel are those written into?
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 1, 2009 15:16:38 GMT -4
Lots of people claim that their writings are inspired by God, and they don't agree as to what God says. How would you know if a writing was really inspired or not? The author could have been deluded or even a deliberate fraud. Prophesy. The books of the bible contain detailed information about the future--a future only the true God could foretell. No other religion's holy books do this. The prophecies in the bible are detailed and of the ones which have already been fulfilled, they were fulfilled with amazing accuracy. That's a very strong indication that the books of the bible were inspired by God.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 1, 2009 3:18:56 GMT -4
DH, you have yet to answer my questions about what is scripture. Scripture is any writing inspired by God.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 1, 2009 3:04:37 GMT -4
On the flip side, I was speaking of inspired, therefore infallible . . . . So, wait. Are you by this suggesting that God chose to inspire a bunch of men who were known to be working under the directive of a secular authority? No. The writers of the original manuscripts were inspired by God to write them. Everything else is either a copy or a translation.
|
|