Evidence for God from Science

First of all I do think there are other inspired works out there,yes

1. What are they?
2. Inspired by who or what?
3. If so inspired, what methods did you employ to arrive at these conclusions?

I do not challange the Bibles truth, but I'm not so sure we have all of it.

That is a contradiction. You said that things were taken out and put in. Can you direct us towards some scholarship backing up this conclusion? Or is this just an opinion?

So the only way to get an answer is to ask God, he is still there and he does guide us.

The problem you run into is whether you admit it or not, you are undermining scripture. Yet, you rely on scripture to reveal to you the very God you say we need to ask.
Certainly prayer, and seeking wisdom are essential. We do need wisdom in our personal lives, and God will supply us such if we earnestly seek it in prayer. In fact, often such prayer will drive us further into the scriptures where we will find such wisdom. However, this is a far cry from filling in missing pages of scripture. Do you have any grounds for this unorthodox interpretation of James 1:5? What exegetical methods are you using?

jlay wrote:

First of all I do think there are other inspired works out there,yes

1. What are they?
2. Inspired by who or what?
3. If so inspired, what methods did you employ to arrive at these conclusions?

I do not challange the Bibles truth, but I'm not so sure we have all of it.

That is a contradiction. You said that things were taken out and put in. Can you direct us towards some scholarship backing up this conclusion? Or is this just an opinion?

So the only way to get an answer is to ask God, he is still there and he does guide us.

The problem you run into is whether you admit it or not, you are undermining scripture. Yet, you rely on scripture to reveal to you the very God you say we need to ask.
Certainly prayer, and seeking wisdom are essential. We do need wisdom in our personal lives, and God will supply us such if we earnestly seek it in prayer. In fact, often such prayer will drive us further into the scriptures where we will find such wisdom. However, this is a far cry from filling in missing pages of scripture. Do you have any grounds for this unorthodox interpretation of James 1:5? What exegetical methods are you using?

Here take a look at this http://www.thelostbooks.com/missing.htm
A simple google search will tell you plenty about the lost books of the bible call the Apocrypha.

Here are 2 possible other sources of God's inspired word http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Mormon#Origin and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an
These both speak of Jesus and claim to be extensions of the bible.

I would even argue the book Alcoholics Anonomus has helped many people and brought them back to God. If that isn't divine inspiration I don't know what is.
God comes to all people my friend, not just to some.

Jayscience wrote:
I would even argue the book Alcoholics Anonomus has helped many people and brought them back to God. If that isn't divine inspiration I don't know what is.
God comes to all people my friend, not just to some.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that God only tries to reach a select few. The Bible's contents are, dare I say it, pretty accessible if you ask me.

Jlay here is a link for the apocrypha http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/fbe/ind ... ection_000
Several chapters that were included in the bible up to 150 years ago.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that God only tries to reach a select few. The Bible's contents are, dare I say it, pretty accessible if you ask me.[/quote]
I agree with you there but it wasn't always like that. Also if you would ask people in some parts of the world they may not feel that way. There still are tribes in the world that don't have modern contact with the out side world. I feel he reachs them in a way that they can understand too. I didn't really mean to stir such a debate. I thought it was common knowledge that there used to be more books in the bible then what there is today. The scripture use to be kept in the Holy of holy area of the temples and only the high priest could even read it. The Pope was the one who decided to take thoughs books out. We are discovering new things all the time.
My real point was that we don't have a clear picture of why God created us knowing we would sin. If you disagree with that then why?

Jayscience wrote:I agree with you there but it wasn't always like that. Also if you would ask people in some parts of the world they may not feel that way. There still are tribes in the world that don't have modern contact with the out side world. I feel he reachs them in a way that they can understand too. I didn't really mean to stir such a debate. I thought it was common knowledge that there used to be more books in the bible then what there is today. The scripture use to be kept in the Holy of holy area of the temples and only the high priest could even read it. The Pope was the one who decided to take thoughs books out. We are discovering new things all the time.
My real point was that we don't have a clear picture of why God created us knowing we would sin. If you disagree with that then why?

Why do parents have children knowing they will go through pain and suffering and eventually die?

Also, your view of the history of the Bible is not very accurate.

??????

If you are comparing the book of Mormon and and the Quaran to the Bible, then your position has bigger issues than I initially expected. To even suggest the Quran is divinely inspired would be considered herertical by even liberal theologians. The name Jesus is mentioned in the Quran but even minimal study reveals that what is stated contradicts the NT. Mormonism is an aberrant view and a cult.

My real point was that we don't have a clear picture of why God created us knowing we would sin. If you disagree with that then why?

Just what exactly are you not clear on? And just what in any of these writings you mention do you think offers any clarity on that subject? It is true that the Bible does not give us answers to every question. However, lack of information in the canon is not an endorsement to find answers in other writings. Particularly when those writings are in conflict with the canon.

There were not more books in the Bible than there are today. The Apocrypha, depending on how the term is being used, is an issue between protestant and RCC. The RCC includes the apocrypha, which was 'added' to the Roman Catholic canon in 1546. The books were not authored then, but were recognized. The books were written before the birth of Christ. Protestants agree with the Hebrew tradition and the early Christian church, that they do not hold these as canonical. http://www.truthnet.org/Bible-Origins/6 ... /index.htm

I would even argue the book Alcoholics Anonomus has helped many people and brought them back to God. If that isn't divine inspiration I don't know what is.
God comes to all people my friend, not just to some.

To put it candidly you are playing fast and loose with the term 'divine inspiration." AA may help people with addiction, but their menthods have serious conflicts with genuine Christianity, and in fact encourage people to shape a God to their own liking.

Why do parents have children knowing they will go through pain and suffering and eventually die?

Also, your view of the history of the Bible is not very accurate.

[/quote]

That is not answer it is a question. And My view is inaccurate in what way? I posted my sources, my views are based on these. If you have facts that disprove this please share them as I have.

I stated that I haven't read those two books so I have no view on there inspiration, but that they are two sources that claim divine inspiration. Ihave read most of the apocrypha and I believe it to be from God. It was part of the bible and was removed because the church didn't like it. But because it was part of the bible I feel without it, the bible isn't a complete work. My father was an alcoholic so I have read the big book and I believe it to be inspired work aswell. Yes, it says you must find a power greater then yourself, it doesn't name Jesus, but I can tell you this most everyone I every met from there became a Christian. They are all about finding Gods will, and if the assumption is that there is only one God. Who else are they gonna find. I can tell you this too, those that didn't find God don't make it. Who are we to say how God finds us or brings us to him? The only proof we have that the bible in God inspired is that it says so. So how can you just assume the other works that claim to be aren't unless you have read them and prayed on it? Have you read any of these books?

Jayscience wrote:

Why do parents have children knowing they will go through pain and suffering and eventually die?

Also, your view of the history of the Bible is not very accurate.

That is not answer it is a question. And My view is inaccurate in what way? I posted my sources, my views are based on these. If you have facts that disprove this please share them as I have.

Perhaps it was an assumption on my part, but everyone I have asked that question of has gathered the purpose: to understand that parents have children knowing what they'll endure because they love them and know that life is worth it; that suffering does not negate worth and meaning.

A link from the main site has some good information on the topic you seem to be getting wrong on the history of Scripture:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... rigin.html

Also, check out Reformed Theological Seminary and their Master's level courses on Church History (free iTunes University courses). The books of the Bible as we have them are pretty solidly what was around back in 100-300AD.

Jayscience wrote:I stated that I haven't read those two books so I have no view on there inspiration, but that they are two sources that claim divine inspiration. Ihave read most of the apocrypha and I believe it to be from God. It was part of the bible and was removed because the church didn't like it. But because it was part of the bible I feel without it, the bible isn't a complete work. My father was an alcoholic so I have read the big book and I believe it to be inspired work aswell. Yes, it says you must find a power greater then yourself, it doesn't name Jesus, but I can tell you this most everyone I every met from there became a Christian. They are all about finding Gods will, and if the assumption is that there is only one God. Who else are they gonna find. I can tell you this too, those that didn't find God don't make it. Who are we to say how God finds us or brings us to him? The only proof we have that the bible in God inspired is that it says so. So how can you just assume the other works that claim to be aren't unless you have read them and prayed on it? Have you read any of these books?

I think you need to undertake some history lessons on how the books of the Bible came to be accepted.

You may find inspiration in books that comprise the Apochrypha, but your statements about them being apart of the Biblical canon, or simply dismissed somehow due to the dislike of some church are quote erroneous.

I did my undergrad in Biblical Lit and textually compared the common material from Matt 13 and the Gospel of Thomas. I've read most apocraphyl and pseudopigraphal works and interacted with some of the modern scholars (Ehrman for one.)

The claims are in my opinion often overstated.

Jay,
I think we would have a consensus here, that considering the AA book inspired scripture is aberrant at best, heresy at worst.

As already suggested, you need to study how the Bible came to be.

The only proof we have that the bible in God inspired is that it says so.

This is a perfect example. We have lots of evidence, specifically regarding prophecy that the Bible is inspired.

So how can you just assume the other works that claim to be aren't unless you have read them and prayed on it? Have you read any of these books?

And there in lies your problem. You ASSUME that we are like you, in that we are just assuming. When in fact, there are methods to examine the book of Mormon and the Quran and the Bible and determine which is inspired and which is not.
So, by your own admission, you are just assuming. You aren't following any sound methods of literary critique or scholorship. So, please don't assume that we are doing the same.

Kurieuo wrote:

Jayscience wrote:............

You may find inspiration in books that comprise the Apochrypha, but your statements about them being apart of the Biblical canon, or simply dismissed somehow due to the dislike of some church are quote erroneous.

The great Roman Catholic Scholar , Jerome, refused to even translate the Apocraphal Books due to errors contained in them .

Define love.
And when you are done, define eternal torture.

Love - an action which does not cause others to be subject to fear, terror, punishment: Torture - the absence of love

God permitted the temptation. But you've yet to demonstrate how forknowledge makes God the author of temptation. When I had a child, I foreknew that being a parent would bring me times of heartache. I knew at some point my child would disobey. I know that my child will be tempted. Did I create the disobedience and the temptation.

Your analogy is quite weak. Being as you do not posses the ability to know everything, nor are you able to create the article of temptation, it is invalid.

you might want to define freewill.

Freewill is the free opportunity to choose or not choose to follow Jesus Christ. The Bible says God will not interfer with free will - that is, the choice everyone must make. He DOES 'interfere/influence' people on a daily basis.