|
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.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 6, 2009 22:02:48 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?
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 7, 2009 13:53:30 GMT -4
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." You produced a quote from Chuck Missler that was itself a handwave. "It's everywhere in the Bible, but if you want to find out where, buy my CD." Short answer: the people who put the Bible together made mistakes. They chose at least one book that was not inspired, and who knows how many inspired writings they mistakenly chose not to include? 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?
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 7, 2009 17:09:51 GMT -4
How do we know they didn't write anything else? I don't know that we can tell. Exactly. Again, I don't think you can draw that conclusion. First of all, there could be any number of other reasons why a religious writing wasn't preserved other than "nobody thought it was inspired." Secondly, religious authorities in the past could have been mistaken about whether a work was inspired or not - like The Song of Solomon, or many of the works that did not make it into the Bible. My point is that I don't think you have yet mentioned any consistent tests that can be used to determine if a writing is inspired. I've pointed out a number of problems with using "it's in the Bible" as the test. Namely that there is at least one book in it that isn't inspired and that there are many other books that might be inspired that aren't in it. "It contains prophecy" also doesn't work. There are books in the Bible that we would agree are inspired that do not contain prophecy. Also, as others have pointed out, there are books outside the Bible that contain prophecy that we would agree are not inspired. So, we come back to the question "what is a viable test to determine if a work is inspired?"
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 8, 2009 2:30:47 GMT -4
How do we know they didn't write anything else? I don't know that we can tell. First of all, there could be any number of other reasons why a religious writing wasn't preserved other than "nobody thought it was inspired." Such as? I don't think you are qualified to make the determination that The Song of Solomon isn't inspired any more than I'm qualified to state that it is. Again, you aren't qualified to make that determination, are you? Nor have you offered any evidence to support your belief that any of the books you listed are possibly inspired. I never said all the books contain prophecy--you said I said it. I claim that the prophecies which have already been fulfilled have been fulfilled with 100% accuracy. There aren't any other books outside the bible that can make that claim. God Himself said that we would know He was God by the prophecies coming to pass. Isa 46:9 Remember the former things of old: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else; God, and [there is] none like me,
Isa 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times [the things] that are not [yet] done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Some of the qualifications are that the book be written by a prophet (OT, and the people of the time knew who they were) or apostle or an associate of an apostle (such as Timothy and Luke). An inspired writing gives glory to God. It condemns sin. It has a miraculous element to it. It speaks to those who are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Some things that would exclude a writing from being considered inspired would be errors, either historical or geographical, writings containing failed prophecies, writings that contradict the recognized, inspired writings of the bible.
(modified to add) Scripture is doubly validated when it is quoted or referred to by another prophet or apostle (or Jesus). I repeat that not every writing mentioned in scripture is considered scripture. I'm only referring to the inspired texts which are in the canon.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 8, 2009 16:49:16 GMT -4
God Himself said that we would know He was God by the prophecies coming to pass. I'd put that in my book, too, if I wanted people to believe it.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 8, 2009 18:03:53 GMT -4
First of all, there could be any number of other reasons why a religious writing wasn't preserved other than "nobody thought it was inspired." Such as? Religious persecution, destruction of the writings along with secular records in time of war, lack of materials and/or the skills necessary to copy or preserve a record, just to name some of the most obvious possibilities. Well until you can make a better case defending it I'm fairly secure in my determination that it is not. But that was my point - that we don't know what was in these other books, and therefore can't make any determination either way. Therefore the possibility that they might have been inspired writings of great value remains open. Writers that you do consider inspired saw fit to refer us to them. Isn't that an indication that they may have been of some value to us? No, I didn't say that either. You mentioned that prophecy is one sign that a work was inspired and I immediately pointed out that not all the books of the Bible contain prophecy, so that diminishes its value as a test. Without having read every book outside the Bible you can't really determine that this claim of being more accurate than any other book is actually true. And, as you noted, some prophecies of the Bible have yet to be fulfilled. And now we get to some actual tests: This test has some possibilities. So how do you determine who is a prophet, apostle, or associate of an apostle? In the case of an "associate", how close an associate does this have to be? Does he (or she) have to have received an assignment to write from an apostle? I'll accept that one as a condition, but there are a lot of writings out there that we would agree are unsinspired that do the same, so it's of limited use. Essentially you are just saying that inspired writings are religious in character. Something the Song of Solomon does not do. I would say that yes, this a generally good condition to test for finding inspired writings, but not a strictly necessary one. There may well be some shorter writings that do not explicitely condemn sin but can be considered inspired, such as individual psalms. Not much of a test. Aside from being pretty vague, much that we would agree is not inspired has a miraculous element to it. (The Song of Solomon would also fail this test). Before I can opine on this one I'll have to ask you to explain a little more of what you mean by that. You do realize that many historians believe the Bible contains a multitude of historical and geographical errors, don't you? Who should determine what are considered disqualifying errors? Again, who determines when a prophecy has failed? Not bad, but obviously of no use in determining if the Bible itself is inspired. Plus, again, who determines when a disqualifying contradiction has occurred? This might be a workable test, presuming that you can determine that the person doing the quoting is in fact a prophet, apostle, or that it was really Jesus speaking. That of course is the tricky part. Are you attempting to differentiate between inspired texts which are in the canon and inspired texts which are not in the canon?
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 8, 2009 23:22:24 GMT -4
[modified because I accidentally deleted my answer] The most ancient copies of the original manuscripts are still in existence. I'm sure some religious writings have been destroyed, but I'm confident that God had the power to preserve what He wants us to know--without saying that any of the supposedly destroyed documents were inspired. Are you hinting that God was unable to keep together a record of what He wants us to know? Since you're the one who opened with doubt concerning its authenticity, isn't the burden of proof on you? What is your evidence that Solomon isn't inspired? If it's something we can't know, then why are we discussing it? If an inspired writer refers to a history book or civil records, why must you suppose those books must be inspired? It doesn't at all diminish prophecy's value as a test. If you want to argue, you should be saying that any book that doesn't contain prophecy isn't inspired, yet you're not saying that for some reason. If there is any other writing that has the prophetic accuracy of the bible and if it's available anywhere, I would know about it. And so would you. It would be really big news. The atheists, agnostics would be all over it. It doesn't exist. The "associates" in the NT were related to an apostle (John Mark), a disciple of Jesus (Luke), relatives and disciples of Jesus (James and Jude). And all of them were eyewitnesses of the events. Barnabas, Silas. An apostle is one who is sent by Christ to preach the gospel. No, they don't have to write anything. The main way the faith was transmitted in the first century was by preaching. Yes, and they have been proven wrong, but they just keep at it. The archeological finds just keep on validating the scripture. Anyone can, when the prophet gives a definite time frame and the event does not occur. For example: "Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion,i which shall be the city of New Jerusalem. 3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased. 4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation. 5 For verily this generation shall not all pass away until an house shall be built unto the Lord, and a cloud shall rest upon it, which cloud shall be even the glory of the Lord, which shall fill the house... 31 Therefore, as I said concerning the sons of Moses for the sons of Moses and also the sons of Aaron shall offer an acceptable offering and sacrifice in the house of the Lord, which house shall be built unto the Lord in this generation, upon the consecrated spot as I have appointed." (Doctrines and Covenants 84:2-5,31.) It didn't happen. Regard your other statements, rather than giving you a reason, why don't you be a little more forthcoming. Are you saying that the books (you may except Solomon) that make up our bible are not inspired? If you don't, please tell me why. If you do, then why all the questions?
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Feb 9, 2009 12:07:47 GMT -4
What is your evidence that Solomon isn't inspired? On your very own argument, it isn't inspired if it doesn't have 100% fulfilled prophesies.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 9, 2009 13:15:01 GMT -4
The most ancient copies of the original manuscripts are still in existence. I'm not sure what your point is there. The "most ancient copies" is simply another way of saying "the oldest copies we still have" - there probably were older copies than what has survived, and we have no originals of any Biblical text. No. In fact I believe that God has the power to restore what was lost by speaking again to modern prophets, when we are ready to receive it. It's authorship is doubtful - it almost certainly was not actually written by Solomon. It doesn't even mention God, let alone glory in him. It does not condemn sin. It does not contain a "miraculous element". It contains no prophecy. It was not quoted in any other Biblical writing. I don't know how you would evaluate whether it speaks to those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, but it certainly doesn't speak spiritually to me. In other words, it fails all of your proposed tests. On top of that, I have the word of a modern prophet that it is not inspired. I'm not supposing they must be inspired. I'm showing that the test "they must have been preserved and in the Bible" is an invalid test for whether a writing is to be considered inspired. I'm saying that inspired writings do not have to contain prophecy. So having prophecies that have been fulfilled may be considered evidence that a writing may be inspired, but are not a necessary condition to be considered inspired. There are books in the Bible that I consider inspired that do not contain prophecies. Indeed, the only book of the Bible I consider not to have been at least in some part inspired is the Song of Solomon. I dont' think you can draw that conclusion either. Prophetic writings are all over the place on the internet, many of which seem to have been fulfilled, but they are also easily discounted by mainstream Christianity because mainstream Christianity doesn't believe in modern prophecy. So how do we determine who has been sent by Christ to preach his gospel? So who determines they have been proven wrong? You somewhat dodged my question there. Matthew 24: "29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. 32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Do you recall the sun being darkened, the moon not giving her light, the stars falling from heaven, the tribes of the Earth seeing the Son of Man coming in great glory, and the elect being gathered from the four corners of the Earth by angels with trumpets all before Jesus' own generation passed away? To use your own words:"It didn't happen." So, are you arguing that Jesus was not a prophet, or is there perhaps more involved in determining when a prophecy has failed than you let on in your own post? (Note: I regard this as an inspired prophecy, even though at first glance it seems to have failed to take place in the stated time frame). No, I consider all of the other books of the Bible to be at least in part inspired. I even consider what is commonly called the Apocrypha to contain in part inspired writings, though they are not nearly of as much value as the books in what we recognize as the Bible. Why the questions? Because I'm trying to get you to think about why you consider these works inspired, and to see if your acceptance of some works as inspired and rejection of others as uninspired is based on workable tests that are consistant.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Feb 9, 2009 17:31:42 GMT -4
What is your evidence that Solomon isn't inspired? On your very own argument, it isn't inspired if it doesn't have 100% fulfilled prophesies. That's not what I said gwiz. Not all the books of the bible contain prophecy. Of the ones that do contain prophecy, that prophecy must be 100% accurate. Not all prophecies have been fulfilled, but many have been. Are we good?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Feb 9, 2009 19:33:19 GMT -4
Not to butt in here too much, but what do you two think of the Apocrypha? It was even in the KJV until 1640.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 9, 2009 21:07:05 GMT -4
I haven't studied the Apocrypha with anywhere near the study I've given the Bible. My general impression is just what I said in my earlier post - it has some pearls of wisdom in it but a lot of the wisdom of men layered on top of it. Some benefit can be gained from reading it but there is much of what I would call misdirection as well. If it is to be read, it must be read with care to discern what is useful and what isn't.
|
|