Have or can biblical writings ever be proven to be the undistorted "Word of God"?

[anon5216]

My premise is No, they have never been proven so, and it is not possible to do so.

Apologists have focused on two things:

1. Do the writings date from the expected time period?
2. If they do date correctly, is the text as we know it close to the original?

Neither of these questions resolve the issue of “undistorted Word of God”.

For that issue, apologists seem to favor variations of straw man arguments.
“Either Jesus was insane, or he was speaking Truth.” etc.

Since none of the available manuscripts are “original”, we can’t be sure exactly what the words of the originals were. But for the sake of not getting sidetracked, lets assume the texts to be accurate copies.

Lets also assume that the writers were not (intentionally, at least) misleading their readers and actually believed their writings to be faithfully true.

Even all that in no way proves their writings to be accurate Truth.

They can be seen to be honest perceptions and reactions to extraordinary events/experiences, but what does that prove? Human perceptions are colored by our knowledge base and our expectations. Our memory of experiences is not by any means unbiased. We may believe we are honestly and truthfully relating our experience, but that belief does not guarantee anything.

You may want to believe that God inspired these writers (and not others) and Personally saw to it that every word was accurately His, and perhaps even some of the biblical writers themselves believed that, but belief proves nothing - (neither does collective belief).

Miracles are not unique to biblical writings and certainly not unique to ancient Jewish culture. Therefore miracles alone do not prove biblical writings to be the undistorted Word of God.

And if you can’t prove biblical writings to be Infallible Truth, what then for all the theologies, teachings, rules, dogmas, etc. built up over the centuries, that start with the assumption of biblical writings being Infallible Truth?

(Before anyone goes off on a rant about a person has to either believe the Bible is Infallible or not believe in God or Jesus at all, that is not the only alternative.)

May God bless you (and your circle of family, friends and acquaintances) in His own way with ever transcending spiritual growth, far beyond anything you or I or any religious authority can imagine.

 

[jeff61]

I hope someone will answer this, because I feel exactly the same.

 

[thistle]

My premise is No, they have never been proven so, and it is not possible to do so.

Apologists have focused on two things:

1. Do the writings date from the expected time period?
2. If they do date correctly, is the text as we know it close to the original?

Neither of these questions resolve the issue of “undistorted Word of God”.

For that issue, apologists seem to favor variations of straw man arguments.
“Either Jesus was insane, or he was speaking Truth.” etc.

Since none of the available manuscripts are “original”, we can’t be sure exactly what the words of the originals were. But for the sake of not getting sidetracked, lets assume the texts to be accurate copies.

Lets also assume that the writers were not (intentionally, at least) misleading their readers and actually believed their writings to be faithfully true.

Even all that in no way proves their writings to be accurate Truth.

They can be seen to be honest perceptions and reactions to extraordinary events/experiences, but what does that prove? Human perceptions are colored by our knowledge base and our expectations. Our memory of experiences is not by any means unbiased. We may believe we are honestly and truthfully relating our experience, but that belief does not guarantee anything.

You may want to believe that God inspired these writers (and not others) and Personally saw to it that every word was accurately His, and perhaps even some of the biblical writers themselves believed that, but belief proves nothing - (neither does collective belief).

Miracles are not unique to biblical writings and certainly not unique to ancient Jewish culture. Therefore miracles alone do not prove biblical writings to be the undistorted Word of God.

And if you can’t prove biblical writings to be Infallible Truth, what then for all the theologies, teachings, rules, dogmas, etc. built up over the centuries, that start with the assumption of biblical writings being Infallible Truth?

(Before anyone goes off on a rant about a person has to either believe the Bible is Infallible or not believe in God or Jesus at all, that is not the only alternative.)

May God bless you (and your circle of family, friends and acquaintances) in His own way with ever transcending spiritual growth, far beyond anything you or I or any religious authority can imagine.

Sounds like you’re a fallen Catholic and are simply looking for someone to prove your decision was correct.

 

[tobinatorstark]

My premise is No, they have never been proven so, and it is not possible to do so.

Apologists have focused on two things:

1. Do the writings date from the expected time period?
2. If they do date correctly, is the text as we know it close to the original?

Neither of these questions resolve the issue of “undistorted Word of God”.

For that issue, apologists seem to favor variations of straw man arguments.
“Either Jesus was insane, or he was speaking Truth.” etc.

Since none of the available manuscripts are “original”, we can’t be sure exactly what the words of the originals were. But for the sake of not getting sidetracked, lets assume the texts to be accurate copies.

Lets also assume that the writers were not (intentionally, at least) misleading their readers and actually believed their writings to be faithfully true.

Even all that in no way proves their writings to be accurate Truth.

They can be seen to be honest perceptions and reactions to extraordinary events/experiences, but what does that prove? Human perceptions are colored by our knowledge base and our expectations. Our memory of experiences is not by any means unbiased. We may believe we are honestly and truthfully relating our experience, but that belief does not guarantee anything.

You may want to believe that God inspired these writers (and not others) and Personally saw to it that every word was accurately His, and perhaps even some of the biblical writers themselves believed that, but belief proves nothing - (neither does collective belief).

Miracles are not unique to biblical writings and certainly not unique to ancient Jewish culture. Therefore miracles alone do not prove biblical writings to be the undistorted Word of God.

And if you can’t prove biblical writings to be Infallible Truth, what then for all the theologies, teachings, rules, dogmas, etc. built up over the centuries, that start with the assumption of biblical writings being Infallible Truth?

(Before anyone goes off on a rant about a person has to either believe the Bible is Infallible or not believe in God or Jesus at all, that is not the only alternative.)

May God bless you (and your circle of family, friends and acquaintances) in His own way with ever transcending spiritual growth, far beyond anything you or I or any religious authority can imagine.

define your interpretation of the undistorted word of God

 

[wynnejj]

I think miracles are key to the question. Who would have followed Jesus, in as far as His claim to be the Son of God, if not for the miracles? Yes, maybe to a very few cult followers. No, to the vast majority. They might practice Christian social principles. They may follow private practices because they like the self-discipline, But true belief in Jesus as God - no, not without miracles. After Jesus’ Ascension, newcomers to the story have only the word of men who appear holy, but even if they are of the greatest virtue closest to the ideal, does that make their story believable? Yes, to very few. Yes, to very many after the miracles of the saints. The Catholic Church has a large body of canonized saints whose recognition is based on miracles or martyrdom. I don’t believe that the Catholic Church would be around as long as it has without the existence of these miracles. The proof of the Bible as a series of holy stories, that may or may not be distorted in many of the details, but is definitely true in its direction and prescriptions, is based on the historical testimony by God through the miracles He demonstrates to man through the intercession of His most ardent believers.

Now, I think it is a question of the incredibility but verifiability of the various documented cases of miracles around the world as ascribed to the many diverse belief systems to determine what belief system is the genuine article.

Anon, what miracles can you cite that are documented and verifiable in other belief systems?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Depends upon what you mean by “proven.” I studied science in college, and can tell you that most everything believed by mankind is unproven in the strict sense of the word, that is, by pure deductive reasoning.

However, if you mean “proven” in a broader sense, like a court of law uses, through a “preponderance of evidence” for example, then yes, the Holy Bible is proven to be the Word of God.

However, the Word of God is not simply reduced to the written Word found in Holy Scripture. We also have the “preponderance of evidence” given to us by the testimony of witnesses repeated throughout the centuries. Trustworthy testimony of the Holy Catholic Church is the basis of the “preponderance of evidence” regarding the inspired nature of the written Word of God.

 

[Jimdandy]

Only the Holy Spirit may reveal to you the Truth that Jesus came to reveal to us-

Language, semantics, poor translations and misguided interpretations may all lead one astray.

So, pray to the Holy Spirit for wisdom and guidance and believe what He leads you to: pray continuously and read Holy Scripture daily.

 

[anon5216]

Sounds like you’re a fallen Catholic and are simply looking for someone to prove your decision was correct.

That would be the first simplistic level, standard comeback to try and avoid the question and close the issue quickly without having to think about it. If you’re happy and content with the reasons other people have given you for being a loyal Catholic, by all means, remain content.

Ex Catholic, yes.
Looking for someone to prove my decision was correct - hardly.

Try a challenge to Catholics to think about whether they haven’t been sold a bill of goods.
The foundation of Catholicism is based on the assumption that every word in the Bible is the “Word of God” - 100% accurate to every last detail. The Church has never proven this and apologists of all stripes don’t address the question except in the most superficial manner - because by and large the ‘sheep’ already assume this to be the case and don’t ask for proof.

Now, to be explicitly clear, my purpose is not to get everyone to leave the Catholic Church or Christianity. I would never suggest that someone like Padre Pio should have left - he had undeniable results from his spiritual practice. I will say that Padre Pio’s spiritual attainments had nothing to do with memorizing and accepting Church teachings/dogmas/rules/etc… That should be plainly obvious to all of those who do memorize and accept said items and have no such results. There is something much, much more to spirituality than becoming a repository of instructions, texts, talking points and slogans, etc. and being a ‘yes man’ spokesperson for them.

May God bless you (and your circle of family, friends and acquaintances) in His own way with ever transcending spiritual growth, far beyond anything you or I or any religious authority can imagine.

 

[anon5216]

define your interpretation of the undistorted word of God

That the entire text of the Bible can be interpreted as 100% accurately and infallibly expressing God’s Word. As opposed to biblical (and other) writings being merely the imperfect and very fallible interpretation by humans of various extraordinary experiences and/or inspirations.

Catholic theology requires the former for any of its subsequent interpretations, interpolations and conclusions to have equal authority as to divine infallibility. This has been assumed but never proven.

May God bless you (and your circle of family, friends and acquaintances) in His own way with ever transcending spiritual growth, far beyond anything you or I or any religious authority can imagine.

 

[anon5216]

I think miracles are key to the question. Who would have followed Jesus, in as far as His claim to be the Son of God, if not for the miracles? Yes, maybe to a very few cult followers. No, to the vast majority. They might practice Christian social principles. They may follow private practices because they like the self-discipline, But true belief in Jesus as God - no, not without miracles. After Jesus’ Ascension, newcomers to the story have only the word of men who appear holy, but even if they are of the greatest virtue closest to the ideal, does that make their story believable? Yes, to very few. Yes, to very many after the miracles of the saints. The Catholic Church has a large body of canonized saints whose recognition is based on miracles or martyrdom. I don’t believe that the Catholic Church would be around as long as it has without the existence of these miracles. The proof of the Bible as a series of holy stories, that may or may not be distorted in many of the details, but is definitely true in its direction and prescriptions, is based on the historical testimony by God through the miracles He demonstrates to man through the intercession of His most ardent believers.

Now, I think it is a question of the incredibility but verifiability of the various documented cases of miracles around the world as ascribed to the many diverse belief systems to determine what belief system is the genuine article.

Anon, what miracles can you cite that are documented and verifiable in other belief systems?

What would you consider as documentation and verifiable proof of the miracle?
And what is to prevent you from simply claiming “if the miracle wasn’t done in the name of Jesus, it must be satanic” as goes the standard Christian response?

A miracle is proof of neither a divine nor satanic source. It is only a support for faith if the person is exposed to and accepts miracles from only one spiritual tradition and assumes others are fake or of satanic/demonic origin.

As to the incredibility of a miracle, that depends on the cultural and spiritual context you view it from. What may be the most stunning, spiritually inspiring miracle to one person may be nothing more than “wow, that’s like being able to do a triple somersault with a half twist while playing reveille on the trumpet” to someone else - impressive, but not necessarily spiritually inspiring.

As to Catholic saints being recognized for either miracles or martyrdom - I find the Church’s criteria rather lax.

If you say miracles are key to getting large quantities of followers, I’ll agree.
Getting quality of followers requires much more.

I hope your faith is based on something more than anecdotes of miracles. To “get you in the door” and capture your attention, fine. A personally experienced miracle now and then to keep your spirits up and boost your confidence, great. But after traveling the spiritual path long enough, miracles get, well, less “miraculous”, and you hunger for more spiritual substance rather than external show.

May God bless you (and your circle of family, friends and acquaintances) in His own way with ever transcending spiritual growth, far beyond anything you or I or any religious authority can imagine.

 

[anon5216]

Depends upon what you mean by “proven.” I studied science in college, and can tell you that most everything believed by mankind is unproven in the strict sense of the word, that is, by pure deductive reasoning.

However, if you mean “proven” in a broader sense, like a court of law uses, through a “preponderance of evidence” for example, then yes, the Holy Bible is proven to be the Word of God.

However, the Word of God is not simply reduced to the written Word found in Holy Scripture. We also have the “preponderance of evidence” given to us by the testimony of witnesses repeated throughout the centuries. Trustworthy testimony of the Holy Catholic Church is the basis of the “preponderance of evidence” regarding the inspired nature of the written Word of God.

It appears you believe only in the preponderance of Catholic Church sanctioned evidence.
What about the preponderance of Native American, Shamanic, Aboriginal, Buddhist, Hindu, Sufi, Vedantic, etc. and entirely unaffiliated evidence?

Not to mention leaving entirely unaddressed the issue of interpreting the evidence and the conclusions derived from the evidence. Conclusions based on limited information are frequently wildly off the mark. Remember that throughout human history, the “known world” was only the “known world” to the people who described it as such, and the “undiscovered lands” were hardly unknown to their inhabitants. Of course there were quite a few geographically dispersed “known worlds”. Similarly, there are more spiritual “known worlds” than just the one the Catholic Church defines.

May God bless you (and your circle of family, friends and acquaintances) in His own way with ever transcending spiritual growth, far beyond anything you or I or any religious authority can imagine.

 

[anon5216]

Only the Holy Spirit may reveal to you the Truth that Jesus came to reveal to us-

Language, semantics, poor translations and misguided interpretations may all lead one astray.

So, pray to the Holy Spirit for wisdom and guidance and believe what He leads you to: pray continuously and read Holy Scripture daily.

I assume by Holy Scripture you mean the Catholic Church version of the Bible, and by Holy Spirit you refer to the Catholic Church’s definition.

Be aware that the Church’s definitions of Holy Spirit, Jesus, Holy Scripture, etc. are finite and God is infinite.

If you are truly open to the guidance of the real Holy Spirit and not just the mental ideas the Church has given you to worship, spiritual doors may open that Church leaders have never had a clue about.

There are many more examples of “Holy Scripture” than what the Church defines - and not all that the Church defines can really be considered as such. And none of it should be worshipped in the rigid and narrowly finite manner in which the Church teaches. You see, Church leaders have long be subject to misguided interpretation.

May God bless you (and your circle of family, friends and acquaintances) in His own way with ever transcending spiritual growth, far beyond anything you or I or any religious authority can imagine.

 

[wynnejj]

I am not sure that I am equipped to take you on in arguing “proof” of a religious persuasion, nor I daresay are you equipped to take me on in a truly believable manner to my satisfaction. Many of the questions you ask, I ask myself. Your premise seems to be two-fold: (1) The Bible, and specifically Jesus, cannot be validated as 100% Truth, and (2) therefore the Catholic Church’s “structure of truth” falls down. That in fact, the teaching is an on-going mix of moral fiction growing to support moral plot lines based on contestable historical facts that creates an unsupportable “structure of truth” - a house of cards. I concur with your notion that Truth is 100% or Not Truth. I concur with your notion that Bible scripture has questionable distortions, in as far as the human factor of portrayal and the literary license taken to convey points of theology. I disagree that the Holy Spirit of the Bible is in error because Jesus used Scripture as His baseline and expounded upon it. I believe Jesus is Lord because of what He says that strikes my heart, and by the on-going miracles received through the intercession of saints. These are like prizes we receive through the intercession of saints that let us know the saint is someone whose life we should inspect for further revealed truth. Revealed truth is an ongoing story and, is a long way from its destination of 100% Truth in Heaven.

I do believe there are nuggets of Truth, like gold, that are struck upon by honest Truth-seekers in other religions. Miracles may occur to suggest to man that they are heading in a right direction. But the mother lode of Truth, not 100% Truth we learn in heaven but that fraction that is Revealed Truth on earth, is found in the Catholic Church because of its preponderance of miracles of Catholic saints. For us, verifiability tends to be inspection of more recent reports of miracles of saints. Yes, this is the promotion at the door that draws the customer into the establishment. You buy the goods inside when personal miracles start occurring. For me, it is the preponderance of occurrences of “burning questions” that grows to a head on a given week, and is answered in a sermon at Sunday Mass in exactly the peculiar manner that my burning question was framed. It is also due to some private revelations that cannot be discussed on this forum, and would indeed not be convincing to others for whom it was not intended. I believe that private revelations are private miracles awarded when a person is disposed to submit Pride, the essence of original sin, to Trust in God.

 

[MarcoPolo]

No, it cannot be “proven” to the satisfaction of a skeptic.

One can only see it by the testimony of the Church, its members, hierarchy, and martyrs with the help of the Spirit. This proof will not satisfy a skeptic.

 

[anon5216]

I am not sure that I am equipped to take you on in arguing “proof” of a religious persuasion, nor I daresay are you equipped to take me on in a truly believable manner to my satisfaction. Many of the questions you ask, I ask myself. Your premise seems to be two-fold: (1) The Bible, and specifically Jesus, cannot be validated as 100% Truth, and (2) therefore the Catholic Church’s “structure of truth” falls down. That in fact, the teaching is an on-going mix of moral fiction growing to support moral plot lines based on contestable historical facts that creates an unsupportable “structure of truth” - a house of cards. I concur with your notion that Truth is 100% or Not Truth. I concur with your notion that Bible scripture has questionable distortions, in as far as the human factor of portrayal and the literary license taken to convey points of theology. I disagree that the Holy Spirit of the Bible is in error because Jesus used Scripture as His baseline and expounded upon it. I believe Jesus is Lord because of what He says that strikes my heart, and by the on-going miracles received through the intercession of saints. These are like prizes we receive through the intercession of saints that let us know the saint is someone whose life we should inspect for further revealed truth. Revealed truth is an ongoing story and, is a long way from its destination of 100% Truth in Heaven.

I do believe there are nuggets of Truth, like gold, that are struck upon by honest Truth-seekers in other religions. Miracles may occur to suggest to man that they are heading in a right direction. But the mother lode of Truth, not 100% Truth we learn in heaven but that fraction that is Revealed Truth on earth, is found in the Catholic Church because of its preponderance of miracles of Catholic saints. For us, verifiability tends to be inspection of more recent reports of miracles of saints. Yes, this is the promotion at the door that draws the customer into the establishment. You buy the goods inside when personal miracles start occurring. For me, it is the preponderance of occurrences of “burning questions” that grows to a head on a given week, and is answered in a sermon at Sunday Mass in exactly the peculiar manner that my burning question was framed. It is also due to some private revelations that cannot be discussed on this forum, and would indeed not be convincing to others for whom it was not intended. I believe that private revelations are private miracles awarded when a person is disposed to submit Pride, the essence of original sin, to Trust in God.

If you are looking for Catholic saint miracles, those are the ones you will notice, and it will seem like “the mother lode preponderance of miracles”. If you are looking elsewhere, you will find the mother lode elsewhere.

From your description of your “personal miracles”, I agree you must be on the spiritual path appropriate for you. Realize that many, many people have quite similar confirmation of their own spiritual path that happens to be completely unrelated to Catholicism, or even any form of Christianity for that matter. It isn’t just memorizing texts and agreeing to believe what you are told to believe that has resulted in your personal “private revelations”.

The Catholic Church, by defining certain collected texts as “biblical” and then further defining those texts as Inerrantly and/or Infallibly the “Word of God” has chosen the path of endless speculations on the “letter of the law” and have confused it with the “spirit”. Subsequently, they have confused generation after generation of innocent followers/members with fallacy upon fallacy.

The Bible is NOT the undistorted “Word of God”, but that doesn’t mean there is no spiritual value there. It certainly would mean that the Church could not get away with simply scaring you into submission, but would have to prove that following its teachings would get you personally verifiable spiritual results. And it would have to do that with every individual - not even just once, but at every significant step of spiritual growth. That’s a whole lot more difficult, and since many of these so called Church leaders have not achieved significant personal spiritual growth themselves - what to do but take the easy way out and define titles that “guarantee” levels of spiritual authority.

May God bless you (and your circle of family, friends and acquaintances) in His own way with ever transcending spiritual growth, far beyond anything you or I or any religious authority can imagine.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

It appears you believe only in the preponderance of Catholic Church sanctioned evidence.
What about the preponderance of Native American, Shamanic, Aboriginal, Buddhist, Hindu, Sufi, Vedantic, etc. and entirely unaffiliated evidence?

No, I’ve studied all the major world religions. The evidence discounts most of them pretty quickly, which leaves only a few to grapple with. When you dig further into the claims of these last few, the converging clues become too compelling to ignore, and a clear answer emerges for those with open minds and the willingness to test everything.

So, the proofs of religion are not like deductive proofs, but more like how one chooses who to love, who to marry and live with for the rest of their life. There’s a lot to consider, but once you resolve to seek the face of God, to enter into a personal relationship with Love and Truth, then a certain conclusion can be drawn, just like the way I knew that my wife was the one I was meant to be with for all the days of my life.

For someone who is skeptical in their search for love, or perhaps never seeks to love and wed another, then no reason in the world will be sufficient.

 

[anon5216]

No, I’ve studied all the major world religions. The evidence discounts most of them pretty quickly, which leaves only a few to grapple with. When you dig further into the claims of these last few, the converging clues become too compelling to ignore, and a clear answer emerges for those with open minds and the willingness to test everything.

So, the proofs of religion are not like deductive proofs, but more like how one chooses who to love, who to marry and live with for the rest of their life. There’s a lot to consider, but once you resolve to seek the face of God, to enter into a personal relationship with Love and Truth, then a certain conclusion can be drawn, just like the way I knew that my wife was the one I was meant to be with for all the days of my life.

For someone who is skeptical in their search for love, or perhaps never seeks to love and wed another, then no reason in the world will be sufficient.

itsjustdave,

I’ve checked out your website, and excuse me if I’m wrong, but it appears your “study of all the major world religions” is purely from the perspective of Catholic apologetics.

Therefore, I believe you’ve only studied how you can prove them wrong vs. Catholicism right. That’s no study at all and your claims of the evidence discounting them pretty quickly is highly suspect. More likely, you quickly discount evidence contrary to your position supporting Catholic apologetics.

I simply don’t believe that you personally had anything resembling an open mind during your so called studies, nor were willing to truly test everything.

As a typical apologist, you refer to biblical writings to support your assertions as if those writings were already proven to be the “Word of God” without actually ever testing/proving that primary assumption.

By the way, my post you were responding to said *“It appears you believe only in the preponderance of Catholic Church sanctioned evidence.” *Nothing in your recent post or your website indicates you were ever seriously open to anything else.

May God bless you (and your circle of family, friends and acquaintances) in His own way with ever transcending spiritual growth, far beyond anything you or I or any religious authority can imagine.

 

[Jimdandy]

I repeat: Only the Holy Spirit may reveal to you the Truth.
Only through prayer may one interpret the Word of God correctly.

May He always Bless you and yours.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…I’ve checked out your website, and excuse me if I’m wrong, but it appears your “study of all the major world religions” is purely from the perspective of Catholic apologetics.

You’re wrong. My college transcripts are not posted on the web page. If they were, you’d see college courses in the study of Shintoism, Buddism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, etc., with just a wee bit of Zoastrianism as well…oh yeah, and Taosim. In fact I spent 3 years in Japan learning first hand what many of these Eastern religions practice and teach. I left the Catholic Church as a teenager and spent 25 years studying other religions and philosophy. Nonetheless, I’m sure its not the first or last time you’ve been wrong. You’re excused.

**As a typical apologist, you refer to biblical writings…
**

Wrong again. Where did I refer to biblical writings at all in my posts? You’re excused again, but making a habit of such baffoonery will lead you no where.

 

[John1]

I repeat: Only the Holy Spirit may reveal to you the Truth.
Only through prayer may one interpret the Word of God correctly.

May He always Bless you and yours.

I agree with you! I still wonder though how you or I know it’s the Holy Spirit and thus know that even we are interpreting the word correctly. If I can’t even be sure of myself knowing the difference between the Holy Spirit and a figment of my own imagination.

Please believe me, I’m not trying to ridicule your position because I do agree.