Is the Bible man-made, or Godly scripture?

[techboy]

but what if the person was actully blue

Cute, but perhaps I need to repeat what I wrote?

No, obviously the context indicates I'm talking about sadness.

no proof the writer was, he was unknown.

No proof? :laugh:

Talk about your classic overstatement. It is true that there is no "by-line" on the earliest work, but there's plenty of evidence for the traditional attribution, not the least of which is that very traditional attribution. (See part A of the linked article by Dr. Daniel B. Wallace for details)

Matthew is full of errors

such as Matthew 1:1-16, has nothing to do with Jesus as Joseph was not his father

Joseph was Jesus' stepfather. Matthew acknowledges this, as he changes his previous "begat" language to "the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ". Hardly an error.

Matthew 1:23, they never called him Immanuel.

So? As we see here:

People and groups in the OT were OFTEN getting special 'place' names and temporary names, to be used for a specific purpose. Solomon, for example, got TWO names at his birth (II Sam 12.25)--Solomon and Jedidiah. No reference is ever made to Jedidiah after that, but it doesn't seem to be an issue. See also the story about Pashur in Jer 20:1-6.

-Israel and Judah consistently receive 'temporary' and symbolic names in the Prophets (cf. Ezek 23 and Is 62.3-4)

-Matthew is the one who quotes the 'Immanuel' passage one verse AFTER the he reports the angel's command to name the son JESUS, AND four verses BEFORE reporting that his parents called him 'Jesus'...he doesn't show the SLIGHTEST concern over this "problem"! (in other words, it WASN'T an issue in that culture). This is even more striking in that Matthew is the one arguing that the passage was fulfilled! --the name issue wasn't an issue.

-If you had to call the kid 'Immanuel" for the prophecy to be fulfilled, what in the world are we gonna do with Is 9.6--where the child gets 4 names (i.e. wonderful counselor, mighty God, everlasting father, prince of peace)?!

-And actually, we don't think it was his mother who had to call him 'Immanuel' anyway. Most modern bibles have a footnote at the 'she shall call him...' text, that explains that in the MSS, we have a couple of variants (he, she, they)...Matthew quotes it as 'they'...This could apply to ANYBODY who acknowledged that Jesus was God walking among his people--even John 1 would qualify for this.

This is just not generally considered a problem:

"There is no problem in referring the names Jesus and Emmanuel to the same person. This may well be the reason Matthew spells out the meaning of the name Emmanuel, meqÆ hJmw`n oJ qeov", “God with us” (LXX Isa 8:8, 10). Indeed this is not a personal name but rather a name that is descriptive of the task this person will perform. Bringing the presence of God to man, he brings the promised salvation—which, as Matthew has already explained, is also the meaning of the name Jesus (v 21b). “They” who will call him Emmanuel are those who understand and accept the work he has come to do. Matthew probably intends the words of Jesus at the end of his Gospel—“Behold I am with you always, until the end of the age” (28:20)—to correspond to the meaning of Emmanuel. Jesus is God, among his people to accomplish their salvation (see Fenton, “Matthew,” 80–82). [WBC]

Matthew 2:15 not a messianic prophecy

It wasn't?

This passage is just another case of typology, and so the argument doesn't find the intended target. A simplified version of many of these arguments looks like this:

1. The OT passage is describing a PAST event.

2. ST events can have NO future messianic pattern-predictive content/implications.)

3. Therefore, this OT passage can have NO messianic pattern-predictive content/implications.

The problem is obviously with statement #2 above, for we have demonstrated amply that the very OPPOSITE was true-MOST major past events in Israel's history were ASSUMED to have predictive elements, under the structure of typology. This was NOT a 'Christian Invention', as we demonstrated. Therefore, all such objections are off-target, due to the incorrect middle premise.

Follow the link for mind-numbing detail...

Matthew 2:16 no record of this ever happening

Well, except for the record we're talking about, right?

Matthew 2:23 cant find that prophesy anywhere in my OT no mater what translation I use

From the same link:

Well, the first major clue is the use of the plural 'prophets'. Matthew has 11 formulaic fulfillment passages (1.23; 2.15; 2.18; 2.23; 3.3; 4.15f; 8.17; 12.18-21; 13.35; 21.5; 27.9f), but this is the ONLY passage with the plural-EVEN in those passages which are 'compound prophecies' from MULTIPLE prophets (i.e. 21.5; 27.9) attributed to only one of them.

When we begin to study passages in which 'prophets' (or equivalent collective nouns such as 'law' or 'scripture') are 'quoted' we notice a peculiar pattern-the 'quote' turns out to be a summary that finds NO explicit word-for-word occurrence. It seems to work as a summary or a conclusion. Consider some of these:

Jer 35.15: 15 Again and again I sent all my servants the prophets to you. They said, "Each of you must turn from your wicked ways and reform your actions; do not follow other gods to serve them. Then you will live in the land I have given to you and your fathers."

Jer 44.4: Again and again I sent my servants the prophets, who said, `Do not do this detestable thing that I hate!'

Zech 1.4: 4 Do not be like your forefathers, to whom the earlier prophets proclaimed: This is what the LORD Almighty says: `Turn from your evil ways and your evil practices.'

Mt 7.12: 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

John 7.38: "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink. 38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him."

Gal 3.22: But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

In each of these cases, we have a collective reference, with a 'quote' that has no close parallels in the OT. The quotes seem to be summaries of multiple passages.

The last three of these warrant special attention-Mt 7.12; John 7.38; and Gal 3.22.

In Matthew 7.12, we have the Golden Rule. There is NO statement even close to it in the OT, and the first known version of it was a 'passive one' from A.D. 20. Rabbi Hillel, challenged by a Gentile to summarize the law in the short time the Gentile could stand on one leg, reportedly responded: "What is hateful to you, do not do to anyone else" (b Shabbath 31a, cited in EBC: 8:187). Jesus' version is of course the stronger statement, covering sins of omission as well as commission. But the point is that it is a summary and/or paraphrase of the OT--NOT a specific citation or string of citations.

In John 7:38, we have a similar summary statement--with no direct citation spot--of several passages with overlapping images (e.g. Is 44.3; 55.1; 58.11; Jer 2.13; 17.13; Zec 14.8) . The 'streams of living water' is an appropriate summary, but doesn't occur 'as is' in the OT.

In Gal 3.22, we have an even more relevant example. We have a summary statement, that uses the vernacular of the times ("prisoner") to summarize OT teaching on our moral culpability. When Paul says Scripture calls the whole world a 'prisoner of sin', he has merely used the cultural forms of the day to communicate the OT teaching in summary form (for the expanded passage list, see Rom 3).

What this suggests to us is that Matthew is making a summary statement of OT teaching, which we could not find the 'proof-text' for in ANY SINGLE OT passage. His summary is a pattern-statement, something recognizable to the readers of his day, but something that might elude those of us without their shared backgrounds.

and

The NET of this: Matthew knew the OT witness to Jesus' insignificant human origins, AND knew how his audience would understand his use of the term "Nazarene". While not as specific a fulfillment as Micah 5.2, it did express a broader pattern in the messianic matrix.

it is obvious who ever wrote Matthew is trying to make Jesus look like Moses

Is it?

You might also want to read this on the early Christian use of Prophecy...

Anyway, I don't see any "errors" here...

Now, if you want to continue this discussion, will you please put some actual thought into it instead of cutting and pasting one-verse, out of context bullets from skeptical websites? I know that takes time (this response took me a while), but honest discussion and understanding is not achieved via your method.

Thanks.

[techboy]

:laugh: and we all know how accurate "eyewitness" and "quoting" someone is

and besides...I thought those were written down years after it happened?

Mardi Gras Skins is totally correct (as usual, it's a shame that he seems to have disengaged somewhat from participating like he used to, if the archives are any indication) about the emphasis on oral history of 1st century Palestine.

I'll recommend Dr. Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses one more time (since you're open to new research )... one of the issues he explores is that in those days, a verbal witness was considered superior to a written one (and not just by the Palestenians... he talks about Greek culture as well), and so explains why the first written texts were not composed until it became a danger that the witnesses would begin to die (reference Paul's "some of whom are asleep", because this is about the same time period). He also talks about their accuracy in maintaining oral traditons, as well as calling upon the latest research in memory and eyewitness testimony.

I suggest you check it out.

[mardi gras skin]

and you know just how much research I've dine don't ya....maybe someone should just look back and see how much I have done. See...I don't do one-sided research..maybe you should bone up on your opponent before you start to try calling them out

If you're questioning the validity of oral testimony in a non-literate society, you should research more and type less. Your whole line of thinking regarding the 30 to 60 year gap from event to written record leads me to believe you are aren't reading what you need to read to keep up with this conversation. :2cents:

edit: let me help. This is basic information on first century social science issues from a professor at Georgetown.

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/pilchj/Scenarios.htm

If you want to research this stuff in more detail, read anything by Bruce Malina.

[BlueTalon]

Thus, I would like hear opinions on the Bible, and whether it is:

1) Man-made, and open to flaws and interpretations...

Or

2) A Godly scripture, and perfect.

I'd also like to hear how the belief in either 1 or 2 (or 3, if there is another offered opinion) influences your understanding and faith.

I'm glad you offered room for a third option, because your first two options offer a false dichotomy (not that I think you intended it that way) -- either it is man-made and flawed, or it is God-originated and perfect.

Option 3) It WAS God-originated and perfect in the original form, but God relied upon humans to do our imperfect best to transmit/translate/compile it, and therefore now has all the potential flaws inherent in a hand-copied, translated piece of literature. Even the original authorship of most of the Bible was accomplished via human agency -- the only bits of the Bible that were actually written by God were the 10 Commandment tablets, possibly the first chapter of Genesis, and perhaps a few other things in the Bible that I can't think of at the moment. As such, it's possible that even the originals were flawed with bad grammar or misspelled words, but if God superintended the authorship, then the content of the original documents was exactly what God wanted to be there. And in that sense, they were perfect.

[mardi gras skin]

it's a shame that he seems to have disengaged somewhat from participating like he used to

We've had two kids since then. I'm typing this now with a 19 month old sitting between me and my laptop, pulling my ear. She's very distracting.

Thank you for missing me, but you and ZGuy are a lot better at this than I ever was.

[techboy]

We've had two kids since then. I'm typing this now with a 19 month old sitting between me and my laptop pulling my ear. She's very distracting.

Excuses, excuses...

Speaking of knowledgable people that aren't around enough, looks like BlueTalon decided to drop in...

[CrabR]

No proof? :laugh:

Talk about your classic overstatement. It is true that there is no "by-line" on the earliest work, but there's plenty of evidence for the traditional attribution, not the least of which is that very traditional attribution. (See part A of the linked article by Dr. Daniel B. Wallace for details)

Papias ascribed it to Matthew [125-130], again no proof of who wrote it and the other books, other than 7-8 of Pauls letters. I can pull up as many "Scholars" and links as you can.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=531&C=552

I am not saying your author is biased but......Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary, or your site has an agenda but........Bible.org, a non-profit Christian ministry

Joseph was Jesus' stepfather. Matthew acknowledges this, as he changes his previous "begat" language to "the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ". Hardly an error.

So? As we see here:

It wasn't?

Follow the link for mind-numbing detail...

Do you let Christian site interpret what the Bible means for you?

It has nothing to do with Jesus lineage to David which the author is trying to prove.[messiah was supposed to come from Davids lineage] You should know the Jewish custom of the day was to trace the Lineage through the Male and not the female, it is obvious the author did not know about the holy spirit or forgot about him when he wrote this. Off hand I would say the people who put together Matthew wer not Jewish or had a poor knowledge, maybe it comes who Papias who said each one translated the sayings "as best he could"........hardley God inspired

Anyway, I don't see any "errors" here...

because you see what you want to see, and what Christian web sites tell you to see.

Now, if you want to continue this discussion, will you please put some actual thought into it instead of cutting and pasting one-verse, out of context bullets from skeptical websites? I know that takes time (this response took me a while), but honest discussion and understanding is not achieved via your method.

Thanks.

I do not go to Skeptical, web sites, I tend to think and reason for myself, unlike you who gets his answers from only Christian answer sites. Guess I am lucky, I started researching and asking questions before the Internet, made me reason for myself instead of having people preprogram my mind on what to believe

again, none of your links refuted what I posted, and the one liners are in context. Try talking to a few Jewish Rabbis about Messianic prophecy, then you will see why they do not belive Jesus to be the Messiah

[techboy]

CrabR, that post was a mess, and very difficult to read, but I will do my best to wade through it and address it.

1. I am well aware that scholarly opinion differs on the authorship of Matthew. Some scholars accept the traditional attribution, and some do not. Some call things uncertain. I don't need to read a Wikipedia article to know this.

What you wrote, however (and then had the audacity to repeat) was that there was no proof of the traditional Matthean authorship.

As the article by Dr. Wallace demonstrated, this statement is laughably false. There is a fair amount of just such proof.

Is Dr. Wallace biased? Probably. So am I. So are you. This does not, however, detract from his credentials, which are excellent, or from the evidence he presents, which is extensive, far more than "no proof", and certainly a heck of a lot more than anything you have ever cited in defense of your positions.

You said there was "no proof". You were wrong. End of story.

2. The Matthew lineage is through Joesph, but your suggestion that "it is obvious the author did not know about the holy spirit or forgot about him when he wrote this" is, frankly, ludicrous. I'll just quote a bit of it (Matthew 1:12-19, NIV):

12After the exile to Babylon:

Jeconiah was the father of Shealtiel,

Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel,

13Zerubbabel the father of Abiud,

Abiud the father of Eliakim,

Eliakim the father of Azor,

14Azor the father of Zadok,

Zadok the father of Akim,

Akim the father of Eliud,

15Eliud the father of Eleazar,

Eleazar the father of Matthan,

Matthan the father of Jacob,

16and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.

The Birth of Jesus Christ

18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

Please notice that first, as I noted, Matthew drastically and laboriously changes the language to "husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ", and that second the very next line talks about the Holy Spirit's role in Jesus' conception!

Do you even read what you're writing? :doh:

3. It is true that when I am researching issues regarding the Bible I use Christian websites. I particularly like the work of Glenn Miller, who I quoted in my last post (and whose arguments you never refuted beyond handwaving about "none of your links refuted what I posted" ), as I find him to be (sometimes painfully) thorough and knowledgable. I also read more neutral academic sources, and I even frequent skeptic websites (which is how I know where you're getting your material from). I find that knowledge can be garnered from a variety of sources.

Many times, though, I do indeed rely on Christian sites to refute the sillier skeptical arguments (such as yours, frequently), because no serious academic ever bothers with them, and only Christian sites even have any incentive to address such things.

Just to be clear, it's not the "cut and paste" part that bothers me about your approach. I've been known to "cut and paste" a tad myself.

Instead, it's the hit and run out of context cut and paste, with nothing of your own thoughts or arguments. As I noted earlier, it doesn't further discussion in any meaningful way.

4. The fact that you keep asserting that one verse bullets are in context simply shows again that you either don't know or don't care what context actually means.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Either way, it's crap.

[Zguy28]

Either way, it's crap.

Kind of like your post? :whoknows:

[TradeTheBeal!]

Kind of like your post? :whoknows:

Truth hurts.

[mardi gras skin]

Truth hurts.

:laugh:

Boyd, thanks for stating your opinion succinctly. You didn't add anything worth reading, but at least your approach doesn't clutter up the boards with sophomoric "research".

:thumbsup: