What exactly does it mean for a text to be divinely inspired? I have noticed that when Christians go about comparing their religious text with other religious texts , they claim it is divinely inspired while that of the Muslims for example isn't divinely inspired. They point to contradictions in the koran, unscientific stuffs or some stuffs like unnecessary violence and some incoherent attributes of Allah to show that such a book could not have been divinely inspired forgetting that the bible itself is abound with contradictions, so much unnecessary violence, unscientific things, incoherent attributes or behavior of Yahweh and unhistorical events.

Given that, what would it mean for a Christian to say the text is "divinely inspired?" How would the end result be different from a text that is not divinely inspired? How would you differentiate a book that is divinely inspired from one that isn't? What specifically was done to the text and/or authors to warrant the label "divinely inspired?"

They for example point to some prophecies to show that the bible is divinely inspired. But the problem is that various people interpret the various prophecies differently such that the prophecies lead to more confusion even amongst the Christians themselves. There should be no cases where the bible says anything that is inaccurate, exaggerated, or false. It should be remarkable in its precision throughout and it shouldn't contain errors of inconsistencies. But that is not the case, so what exactly does it mean for a book or text to be divinely inspired? And how will you differentiate such a book with one that isn't divinely inspired?

Mazaje, how body?

mazaje:
Given that, what would it mean for a Christian to say the text is "divinely inspired?"

It simply means such a person[b] believes [/b] the text was inspired by God. Key word being believe.

How would the end result be different from a text that is not divinely inspired?

Quite straight forward. One would accept what she/he believes to be divine and reject what she/he doesn't believe to be divine.

How would you differentiate a book that is divinely inspired from one that isn't?

The crux of the thread. I suppose this answer will vary from person to person, but personally, it's really quite simple and I know you won't like the answer - but one differentiates by Faith.

What specifically was done to the text and/or authors to warrant the label "divinely inspired?"

Some people base their acceptance/rejection of such texts based on the prevailing sentiment or best estimation or educated guesses within academic circles. And truly, that is not an unreasonable position. Personally, I hold that spiritual matters are not academically apprehended, and attempting to do so is tantamount to trying to dig a 1000ft hole using a telescope. In matters of faith, you think with your heart, not just your brain. And where and in what a person puts their faith and trust I do not think should be left to a scholar or expert.

They for example point to some prophecies to show that the bible is divinely inspired. But the problem is that various people interpret the various prophecies differently such that the prophecies lead to more confusion even amongst the Christians themselves.

This is true and unfortunate. As long as we're all humans, we're all different and will see things differently. This I do not think is a direct indictment on the bible, but rather on us, and our shortcomings in being able to understand it and in being able to work with each other.

There should be no cases where the bible says anything that is inaccurate, exaggerated, or false. It should be remarkable in its precision throughout and it shouldn't contain errors of inconsistencies. But that is not the case, so what exactly does it mean for a book or text to be divinely inspired? And how will you differentiate such a book with one that isn't divinely inspired?

But who decides what "precision" is Mazaje? No matter what the issue, from religion to science to politics you can have equally experienced and knowledgeable people/experts on different sides of a singular issue. I do not think there is a universal template that can applied evenly across the globe as a means of "measuring" the "accuracy" or "precision" of the bible. And if spiritual matters are not academically apprehended, do you suppose it is even possible to "measure" the authenticity of the bible? And if we were to just speaking academic-wise, even then, there isn't a general consensus among scholars on countless biblical issues.

my question is why would god allow such a "divine" book to be altered and tampered with so much yet doom people to hell for not believing it

Mudley313:

my question is why would god allow such a "divine" book to be altered and tampered with so much yet doom people to hell for not believing it

When you make a definitive statment that the bible has been "altered and tampered with" can you begin to prove it? show where and how much was changed? Or isn't that just conjecture? your personal opinion?

Mudley313:

my question is why would god allow such a "divine" book to be altered and tampered with so much yet doom people to hell for not believing it

Tampered by who&when was it done?

toba:

Tampered by who&when was it done?

Just make some researches on The Councils of Nicea and Constantinople, Martin Luther, Vulgate and the general history of the Christian creed.

Personally, I think the bible or koran is not divine and will never be. Reason, because these are only reflecting the opinions of the writers and the age in which

they were written. Granted, they were inspired, but no matter how inspired a man is, he is always limited by lack of knowledge. For instance, you can not be

so inspired to solved mathematical problem on calculus without first be grounded on the simple laws of algebra or the precedence rule of BODMAS.

These texts bear the indelible imprint of the culture of the people amongst whom it was composed. We therefore, cannot say that these these people possess

all the knowlegde in the world much less of God. knowlegde itself is evolving, as we can see in the sciences which is just one branch of knowledge. Granted,

these texts have presents eternal values worthy of emulation but each one of them (bible, koran, mormon,etc) only points to a way to the absolute truth but

must not be considered as the truth itself. So, the so called holy books are only comprised on speculations, some of which are founded and some are not, but

not the absolute undiluted truth (which is impossible to be contained in a book, anyway).

As modern men, we should naturally stand on the shoulder of our forbears but must look behold to penetrate more.

The truth can only be experience within and experience individually.

Thanks.

Hey Jesoul, whats up?

Mazaje: Suppose that you are given 2 books and told that 1 of them is "divinely inspired" while the other is not, and you are asked to identify which one is which. How could you tell? What would you look for? What differences would there be in the end result between a book that is and is not divinely inspired?

Jesoul: It's all by faith.

Isn't that subjective? Ins't that what applies to all other religious text out there?. . . .

mazaje:

Hey Jesoul, whats up?

Not much my brotha oh and btw, in due time, I have a nice lil suprise for you.

Mazaje: Suppose that you are given 2 books and told that 1 of them is "divinely inspired" while the other is not, and you are asked to identify which one is which. How could you tell? What would you look for? What differences would there be in the end result between a book that is and is not divinely inspired?

Jesoul: It's all by faith - reinforced by corroborating experiences

Isn't that subjective? Ins't that what applies to all other religious text out there?. . . .

  Absolutely. And I think that's the point I'm trying to make. Matters of faith are subjective. What is true for me, my reasons for believing in a particular manner - and whether my reasons are justified - are known only to me and God. And if my faith produces good fruit in loving my neighbor, working towards a better world, giving of myself - then what's the beef?

  A text becomes more than a text when its words jump off the pages and become true and powerful in my life, I have experienced it - that is why I believe it. And if it has not had the same effect on the next person and they don't believe it - that's fine too. No two people are alike. I can only speak for myself and try to explain why I believe what I believe - its up to each of us to figure it out for ourselves.

agi-tuedor:

Just make some researches on The Councils of Nicea and Constantinople, Martin Luther, Vulgate and the general history of the Christian creed.

Personally, I think the bible or koran is not divine and will never be. Reason, because these are only reflecting the opinions of the writers and the age in which

they were written. Granted, they were inspired, but no matter how inspired a man is, he is always limited by lack of knowledge. For instance, you can not be

so inspired to solved mathematical problem on calculus without first be grounded on the simple laws of algebra or the precedence rule of BODMAS.

These texts bear the indelible imprint of the culture of the people amongst whom it was composed. We therefore, cannot say that these these people possess

all the knowlegde in the world much less of God. knowlegde itself is evolving, as we can see in the sciences which is just one branch of knowledge. Granted,

these texts have presents eternal values worthy of emulation but each one of them (bible, koran, mormon,etc) only points to a way to the absolute truth but

must not be considered as the truth itself. So, the so called holy books are only comprised on speculations, some of which are founded and some are not, but

not the absolute undiluted truth (which is impossible to be contained in a book, anyway).

As modern men, we should naturally stand on the shoulder of our forbears but must look behold to penetrate more.

The truth can only be experience within and experience individually.

Thanks.

I don't agree with everything you said, but I like a good chunk of it and the spirit from which you speak it. Godbless!

How do you objectively know which text is divine and which is not with out using the evusive faith factor?