Disprove Scriptural inspiration

[sparklecat]

1. 2 Timothy 3:16 states: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
2. 1 Corinthians 7:12 states: To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
3. As Paul clearly states that he is giving this command, not God, then either this verse is not inspired by God or Paul is wrong.
4. If Paul is wrong, his statement that he, not the Lord, is commanding this, is false and therefore uninspired.
5. Therefore all Scripture is not inspired by God.


What do you think? Any problems or weak points?

The only way out I see is to state either that the 1 Corinthians verse isn't Scripture or God inspires error...

 

[Yahweh]

Triadboy is the real authorative figure on the biblical stuff, but I would think one of the first blows against the devine inspiration of the bible is the assumption of a hypothetical supreme being in the first place... its a shaky premise.

I wouldnt see how the bible is any more "devinely inspired" than any other Holy book that has ever been written.

ChristianAnswers.net - Is the Bible True? gives some unusual answers. The ones I found the most interesting were

Scientific Accuracy

Another striking evidence of divine inspiration is found in the fact that many of the principles of modern science were recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before scientist confirmed them experimentally. A sampling of these would include:

* Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)
<blockquote>It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in (maybe the Earth is a flat disc...)</blockquote>

* Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)
<blockquote>For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.</blockquote>

* Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)
<blockquote>But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. (It just sounds like God wants to Earth to burn and the unbelievers to burn with it...)</blockquote>

* Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)
<blockquote>All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.</blockquote>

* Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)
<blockquote>As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.</blockquote>

* Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)
<blockquote>25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands.

26 They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed:

27 But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end</blockquote>

* Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)
<blockquote>For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. (This particular verse is an endorsement of animal sarcrifices)</blockquote>

* Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)
<blockquote>The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.</blockquote>

* Gravitational field (Job 26:7)
<blockquote>He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.</blockquote>

* and many others.

These are not stated in the technical jargon of modern science, of course, but in terms of the basic world of man's everyday experience; nevertheless, they are completely in accord with the most modern scientific facts.

I'm sorry, maybe its my lack of faith that is blinding me, but I just cant fathom in any interpretive or literal way most of these verses demonstrate the science that ChristianAnswers.net says they demonstrate...

It is significant also that no real mistake has ever been demonstrated in the Bible -- in science, in history, or in any other subject. Many have been claimed, of course, but conservative Bible scholars have always been able to work out reasonable solutions to all such problems.

I have one response to this: The firmament.

 

[sparklecat]

Oh, sure, I agree with most of what you say. I'm no proponent of Scriptural inerrancy, or direct inspiration. Just looking for a way to argue the point without debating each little contradiction endlessly.

Thought a deductive proof might help, if I could keep enough holes out of it...

 

[T'ai Chi]

1. 2 Timothy 3:16 states: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
2. 1 Corinthians 7:12 states: To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
3. As Paul clearly states that he is giving this command, not God, then either this verse is not inspired by God or Paul is wrong.
4. If Paul is wrong, his statement that he, not the Lord, is commanding this, is false and therefore uninspired.
5. Therefore all Scripture is not inspired by God.

Some have 2 Timothy 3:16 a little differently. Instead of "God-breathed", they have "given by inspiration of God".

I don't see how Paul giving the saying negates inspiration by God.

 

[c4ts]

1. 2 Timothy 3:16 states: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
2. 1 Corinthians 7:12 states: To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
3. As Paul clearly states that he is giving this command, not God, then either this verse is not inspired by God or Paul is wrong.
4. If Paul is wrong, his statement that he, not the Lord, is commanding this, is false and therefore uninspired.
5. Therefore all Scripture is not inspired by God.


What do you think? Any problems or weak points?

The only way out I see is to state either that the 1 Corinthians verse isn't Scripture or God inspires error...

God can do irrational things that make no sense to us because he's all-powerful and all-knowing. Therefore it only looks like error.

But if anyone actually argues that, they're making all conversation about God into irrational nonsense, so you can just leave them to their babbling.

 

[sparklecat]

Re: Re: Disprove Scriptural inspiration

Some have 2 Timothy 3:16 a little differently. Instead of "God-breathed", they have "given by inspiration of God".

I don't see how Paul giving the saying negates inspiration by God.

Because its in Scripture- and if he's saying that its not inspired by God (not sure how else he could clearly state that), then all Scripture can't be inspired.


c4ts- Aye, indeed.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Sparkle, I thought I found one slight problem with your conclusion as it appears as though Paul is claiming he's speaking with the permission of God a few verses earlier.

1 Cor 7:6 But I speak this by permission, [and] not of commandment.

but when I checked alternate translations I find that permission isn't the most accurate modern translation.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/versions/1071209813-8456.html#6
Revised Standard Version: I say this by way of concession, not of command.

The only out I can possibly see is that an apologist might claim that Paul was writing under an inspired spirit when he wrote it. Otherwise I think your logic is solid. Paul is clearly speaking for himself, not for God. You can toss 2 Tim 3:16 as any internal proof of inerrancy.

 

[sparklecat]

The only out I can possibly see is that an apologist might claim that Paul was writing under an inspired spirit when he wrote it. Otherwise I think your logic is solid. Paul is clearly speaking for himself, not for God. You can toss 2 Tim 3:16 as any internal proof of inerrancy.

I've run into that in a discussion. But then it was asked how Paul could say any more clearly that he is saying something, not God, if he wanted to get that across, which I don't think anyone answered.

 

[calladus]

Oh, sure, I agree with most of what you say. I'm no proponent of Scriptural inerrancy, or direct inspiration. Just looking for a way to argue the point without debating each little contradiction endlessly.

Thought a deductive proof might help, if I could keep enough holes out of it...

Sparklecat, this is EXACTLY what non-believers have hit on again and again until we are sick to death of it.

Non believers point out parts of the bible that contradict, or conflicts with modern scientific knowledge, or that obviously borrows itself from an earlier, non-Christian religion. And as soon as we point at one of these items, a dozen true believers jump in and start arm waving and tap dancing, debating the point and talking in circles until they wear us down and we are sick of hearing from them anymore.

If a non-believer persists, then he or she is finally told that the item is being taken 'out of context' or that it must be 'taken on faith' or even worse, the true believer will stand firm on a foundation of willful ignorance.

Non-believers that make a comprehensive list of Bible errors, who do a decent job of it, are written off as Atheist Zealots, practicing their Atheist Religion.

Here, I'm psychic, and I'll make a prediction that will absolutly win Randi's challange!

If you create a good argument that proves the bible's inaccuracys, contradictions, or proof against god, then you will be labeled as either hateful or will be dismissed as an atheist kook by true believers.

 

[sparklecat]

Sick unto death I sympathize with... I'm in the middle of finals now (great time to get insomnia, huh?), and I get a bit annoyed when people lambast me about refusing to show them these supposed errors, no matter how many times I've told them I will get them a list when I'm out of school.

As for those I actually have brought up... its amazing how many hoops they'll jump through to show how its not a contradiction. Even after I point out that their policy of reinterpreting one passage to fit another makes it impossible to test whether the Bible is true or not...

Yes, I've also been told that my desire for it to be false makes me not able to see how they all fit together so nicely!

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I've been googling and found a few things.

www.biblequery.org/2tim.htm+2+timothy+contradictions&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]Comment on 2 Tim 3:16[/url] (scroll to highlighted)

And seaching the same source for the 1 Cor verse we get this.

Q: Are 1 Cor 7:12-16 and 1 Cor 7:25-29 scripture, or just Paul’s opinion?
A: Some try to say it is just Paul’s personal opinion, and conservative Christians say it is still authoritative teaching. All should be able to agree on three things
1. There is no teaching in the surrounding verses of 1 Corinthians 7:8-13 and 7:17 that we cannot glean from elsewhere in the Bible.
2. 1 Corinthians 7:14-16 is a new teaching found no where else in the New Testament, and 1 Corinthians 7:12-13 is a prelude to this.
3. Paul is saying the Lord did not directly say this.
4. Paul said what he wrote was the words of God in 1 Corinthians 2:13; 14:37. Peter said Paul’s words were scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-16.
5. Paul never said this did not have the apostolic authority of his other teaching.
See Hard Sayings of the Bible p.589-591, Bible Difficulties and Seeming Contradictions p.242-244, When Critics Ask p.457-458, and Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties p.397-398 for more info.

And this gem of a section from thebereans.net
http://thebereans.net/ref-biblos.shtml#inspiration

II. Does the Inspiration of The Bible Extend to Every Part?

Yes. From the dry lists in Chronicles to the very words of God in Exodus, and through Christ. And more, it extends to every sentence, word, mark, point, jot and tittle in the original parchments. When Jesus said in Matt. 5:17, 18, That not one "jot" or "tittle" should pass from the Law until all be fulfilled, he referred to the smallest letter (jot) and the smallest mark (tittle), of the Hebrew language, thus indicating that even they were inspired, and were necessary for a complete understanding of God's meaning in His Word.

and a little lower we have this

As we have seen "Bible Inspiration" is something totally different and unique from the inspiration of Poets, Writers and Public Speakers. It is an inspiration in which the Exact Words of God are Imparted to the Speaker or Writer by the Holy Spirit.

So once again, their claiming every single mark in the Bible is Scripture inspired by God, while several sentences of it are Paul himself writing that his opinions are his alone.

And of course the boys over at Tekton have their say as well.
http://www.tektonics.org/concession.html

Verse 12 looks quite imposing, but it too does not take much effort to investigate. In v10, Paul directly appeals to the teachings of our Lord such as those in Matt 5:32 and 19:3-9. He says in v10: "To the married I give this command, not I, but the Lord." The rest of verses 10 and 11 are restatements and reminders of Jesus' words on divorce. Now Paul is going to deal with something Jesus is not recorded as dealing with in the gospel accounts: marriage and divorce when one partner is a believer and the other is not. As these words of Paul in verses 12-40 are not issues that Jesus directly addressed [if He did address these issues they are not recorded], Paul states that it is he and not Jesus who is saying these things. Yet the fact that Jesus was not recorded as physically uttering these words that Paul is giving in verses 12-40 really does not conflict with the orthodox doctrine of inspiration that 2 Tim 3:16 puts forth, for the term theopneustos in that passage, "God breathed", is not restricted only to those words of Jesus. Check the BAGD lexicon or any other lexicon to verify this point. If inspiration covered only what Jesus Himself said, then we would have a problem. But inspiration does not limit itself to what Jesus Himself said, and the Church has never had this restrictive a view in its history. This objection commits a straw man fallacy by equating the set of God-inspired writings with the set of sayings of Jesus, pointing out that Jesus did not utter the words in verses 12-40, and proclaiming that there is a contradiction.

Hmmm. Looks like a Bentley, drives like a Dodge.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

* Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)

As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.


http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html

What a beautiful piece of ammo!! We need to run this by at ' Rapture Ready'...

If David's descendants are going to number in the billions ( or more ), it is going to take thousands of years ( at least ) for this to happen.. Wouldn't that sort of interfere with the Rapture taking place anytime soon?
Or is this scripture not true?

Talk about Ammo, I think this is one of ehbowen's 16" armour piercing babys....

 

[triadboy]

1. 2 Timothy 3:16 states: All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.
2. 1 Corinthians 7:12 states: To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.
3. As Paul clearly states that he is giving this command, not God, then either this verse is not inspired by God or Paul is wrong.
4. If Paul is wrong, his statement that he, not the Lord, is commanding this, is false and therefore uninspired.
5. Therefore all Scripture is not inspired by God.


What do you think? Any problems or weak points?

The only way out I see is to state either that the 1 Corinthians verse isn't Scripture or God inspires error...

I like your thinking. 1 + 2 Timothy and Titus are forgeries written in the middle of the 2nd century to combat Gnosticism - so they do no good here.

Paul is speaking in chapter 7 about sex and stuff (eeewwww). He says if you are unmarried or a widow why not just stay like that - like me. But if you HAVE to have sex, then get married - because it's better to be married and have sex then burn in hell. Then in 1 Corinthian 7:12 he clearly makes a statement on his authority. So yes one could say he is clearly stepping out of the umbrella of God to make this statement. If your wife is non-believer, but still wants to stay with you - let her. However, xians will say all utterances are inspired by the Lord, whether you think so or not.


There is also:
1 Cor.7:25
"Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment...."

Paul obviously hates sex and the idea of people having sex (eeewwww). A virgin is a precious temple of the Lord with a holy mind and spirit. A married woman is concerned with 'gettin' down wit daddy' and this tarnishes her soul.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: Re: Disprove Scriptural inspiration

There is also:
1 Cor.7:25
"Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment...."

" Now God ( ...you do know who God is? ) doesn't have anything to say about this, but let me tell you what I think.... "

That's pretty heavy stuff..

 

[Mr Clingford]

3. As Paul clearly states that he is giving this command, not God, then either this verse is not inspired by God or Paul is wrong.

This is where I think your argument falls down. Inspiration is not necessarily the same as authority; it all hinges on how you interprete 'inspiration'

 

[sparklecat]

This is where I think your argument falls down. Inspiration is not necessarily the same as authority; it all hinges on how you interprete 'inspiration'

Does it matter? Even should Paul have this authority, if even one passage is not inspired, then all Scripture is most definitely not inspired by God.


"Paul is saying the Lord did not directly say this"- bah. And how then would Paul phrase it if he wanted to say that the command was a personal, not inspired by God one?

AKA I'm going to reinterpret and not read what it really says because that would make my neat little doctrine fall apart and I'd have to learn to think...

 

[69dodge]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Hmmm. Looks like a Bentley, drives like a Dodge.

Hey!

You got somethin' against Dodges?

 

[frisian]

Triadboy is the real authorative figure on the biblical stuff, but I would think one of the first blows against the devine inspiration of the bible is the assumption of a hypothetical supreme being in the first place... its a shaky premise.

Why?

Because it is subjective?

 

[frisian]

Re: Re: Disprove Scriptural inspiration

Some have 2 Timothy 3:16 a little differently. Instead of "God-breathed", they have "given by inspiration of God".

I don't see how Paul giving the saying negates inspiration by God.

How are God breathed and inspiration identical?

Who claims them as such and how so?

 

[frisian]

Re: Re: Disprove Scriptural inspiration

God can do irrational things that make no sense to us because he's all-powerful and all-knowing. Therefore it only looks like error.

But if anyone actually argues that, they're making all conversation about God into irrational nonsense, so you can just leave them to their babbling.

Or they seem irrational because you are looking for objective "truth" via a subjective self.

Have you obtained absolute awareness?

Are you aware of every variable that goes into your thought processes?