the author of religious texts

[chrismythoi]

i thought i would start a thread that although i'm sure has been done before, would still be of interest.

can there be an argument for religious books having god as their author?

when i ask that question i have in mind the bible, but i am sure it could be posed to several others.
i would say that even if god himself wrote the bible, it has been edited and translated so many times that the original author's hand is now too far back from the final form.
the bible also claims to be inspired by god, but even so, how could the ineffable nature of perfection find full expression in words. simply it cannot. we as human readers must translate words and ideas into our own versions, hence all the various sects and faiths that exist.

i would be interested to hear other people's thoughts, especially if they believe in god's authorship.

[NikolaiI]

I do not believe in God's authorship of the bible although I do believe Christ was a God-realized the soul, and thus a divine saint. Christ preached God-consciousness, or in other words to love God with all one's heart and soul. That is the center of what should be Christianity, putting God at the center. As God really is at the center of things, it's just acknowledging it. We should be following God because God is the Absolute Truth, and the all-attractive Supreme Personality of Godhead. Not just an impersonal Light, but a Sage, and the source of everything.

But there is another text called Bhagavad-Gita, which means the Song of the Lord. It's a text written in Sanskrit, of 700 verses in Sanskrit, spoken by Lord Krishna to Arjuna over 5000 years ago. Krishna says in Bhagavad-Gita that He is God, and He explains five topics thoroughly - Time, nature, God, the living entity, and the activities of the living entity. He explains the science of self-realization, which is the path of devotion to God.

The Bhagavad-Gita is also known as Gitopanisad, and it is one of the 108 Upanishads. But it is the summary of all Vedic knowledge, the essence and the sweetest of all instruction, as it is spoken by God Himself.

[lupe]

There is a whole branch of religious studies that deals exactly with this issue, called the "hermeneutics". For a good introduction to it, I recommend you the fascinating book "Whose word is-it?" by Bart Ehram.

The book shows us where and why changes were made in the manuscripts, changes that have a dramatic impact on widely held beliefs concerning the Bible. At the same time, it explains that most of the initial gospels of the Bible were excluded from the "official" version centuries later, as they did not fit the Vatican strategies. The main reason was they were stating the obvious: Jesus Christ was a brilliant leader and an inspired revolutionary, but had not any kind of supernatural origins...

(Of course, the book is a serious scientific study and does not consider the question if some or all the books of the Bible are actually written by an invisible power!!)

[blazeofglory]

i thought i would start a thread that although i'm sure has been done before, would still be of interest.

can there be an argument for religious books having god as their author?

when i ask that question i have in mind the bible, but i am sure it could be posed to several others.
i would say that even if god himself wrote the bible, it has been edited and translated so many times that the original author's hand is now too far back from the final form.
the bible also claims to be inspired by god, but even so, how could the ineffable nature of perfection find full expression in words. simply it cannot. we as human readers must translate words and ideas into our own versions, hence all the various sects and faiths that exist.

i would be interested to hear other people's thoughts, especially if they believe in god's authorship.

You raised very valid questions. Of course a liberally minded man cannot stop asking questions. I have asked these questions a thousand and one time.

The answer? The answer is in the question. Think deeply.

[mono]

i would be interested to hear other people's thoughts, especially if they believe in god's authorship.
Considering that the majority of the world endorses some kind of religion, it surprises me a bit that some sort of God/Allah/Krishna/Lao Tzu/Confucius/etc. has not earned some sort of Nobel Prize for literature nor Pulitzer Prize; perhaps no committees know whether to award him/her/it/them a posthumous award or not . . . :confused:

I do not believe in God's authorship of the bible although I do believe Christ was a God-realized the soul, and thus a divine saint. Christ preached God-consciousness, or in other words to love God with all one's heart and soul. That is the center of what should be Christianity, putting God at the center. As God really is at the center of things, it's just acknowledging it. We should be following God because God is the Absolute Truth, and the all-attractive Supreme Personality of Godhead. Not just an impersonal Light, but a Sage, and the source of everything.

But there is another text called Bhagavad-Gita, which means the Song of the Lord. It's a text written in Sanskrit, of 700 verses in Sanskrit, spoken by Lord Krishna to Arjuna over 5000 years ago. Krishna says in Bhagavad-Gita that He is God, and He explains five topics thoroughly - Time, nature, God, the living entity, and the activities of the living entity. He explains the science of self-realization, which is the path of devotion to God.
Though I have no intention of insulting your beliefs, NikolaiI, and I appreciate to hear that you respect so many religions, even though you personally endorse the Hindu faith (you have much more reverence than many others I have encountered), every religion claims their text(s) as the word of some sort of Being worthy of worship, and most happened to end up as monotheistic; you mentioned Krishna as the Supreme Being in the Bhagavad Gita, but the 12 apostles (plus some) claimed God had inspired them to write The Bible, Moses and countless Rabbinic scholars believe God inspired them to compose the Torah and Talmud, Mohammed believed God inspired him to write the Koran, many individuals continue to worship the words of Lao Tzu and Confucius, even more the allegedly recorded teachings of Buddha, and several tribal religions still exist in remote parts of Africa, Australia, and Central/South Americas. In the end, for the one who pursues truth, one ends up feeling like a character in a classic Agatha Christie "who-dun-it" novel, as to which text(s) to believe, which text(s) not to believe, and which text(s) seem most accurate; ask any religious leader or radical, and they will recommend x as the most accurate, despite how many translations and interpretations of the text(s) have taken place.
I have posted this poem by Rumi (translated by Coleman Barks) a few times in various parts of the forum, and, assuming that a monotheistic Objective Being exists, Rumi presents it in the form of an elephant. This metaphor, I believe, speaks loud in presenting the subjectivity and biases of all religions:

Elephant in the Dark

Some Hindus have an elephant to show.
No one here has ever seen an elephant.
They bring it at night to a dark room.

One by one, we go in the dark and come out
saying how we experience the animal.

One of us happens to touch the trunk.
"A water-pipe king of creature."

Another, the ear. "A very strong, always moving
back and forth, fan-animal."

Another, the leg. "I find it still,
like a column on a temple."

Another touches the curved back.
"A leathery throne."

Another, the cleverest, feels the tusk.
"A rounded sword made of pocelain."
He's proud of his description.

Each of us touches one place
and understands the whole in that way.

The palm and the fingers feeling in the dark are
how the senses explore the reality of the elephant.

If each of us held a candle there,
and if we went in together,
we could see it.
Expanding upon Rumi's poem, let us hypothetically say that each individual who touched the elephant and made such determinations onto the elephant's existence wrote a book on his/her findings, each claiming that the elephant inspired him/her to write the book. Over months, years, centuries, and millenia, many of their readers endorsed in their books; some believed one, some believed others, and some none. Soon enough, wars would break out as to which belief seemed superior, buildings would undergo construction and destruction in the elephant's memory, people would claim miracles had occurred because of the elephant, and many would believe that their lives exist because of the elephant. Which should we believe? Decisions, decisions . . .

[NikolaiI]

Considering that the majority of the world endorses some kind of religion, it surprises me a bit that some sort of God/Allah/Krishna/Lao Tzu/Confucius/etc. has not earned some sort of Nobel Prize for literature nor Pulitzer Prize; perhaps no committees know whether to award him/her/it/them a posthumous award or not . . . :confused:

Though I have no intention of insulting your beliefs, NikolaiI, and I appreciate to hear that you respect so many religions, even though you personally endorse the Hindu faith (you have much more reverence than many others I have encountered), every religion claims their text(s) as the word of some sort of Being worthy of worship, and most happened to end up as monotheistic; you mentioned Krishna as the Supreme Being in the Bhagavad Gita, but the 12 apostles (plus some) claimed God had inspired them to write The Bible, Moses and countless Rabbinic scholars believe God inspired them to compose the Torah and Talmud, Mohammed believed God inspired him to write the Koran, many individuals continue to worship the words of Lao Tzu and Confucius, even more the allegedly recorded teachings of Buddha, and several tribal religions still exist in remote parts of Africa, Australia, and Central/South Americas. In the end, for the one who pursues truth, one ends up feeling like a character in a classic Agatha Christie "who-dun-it" novel, as to which text(s) to believe, which text(s) not to believe, and which text(s) seem most accurate; ask any religious leader or radical, and they will recommend x as the most accurate, despite how many translations and interpretations of the text(s) have taken place.
I have posted this poem by Rumi (translated by Coleman Barks) a few times in various parts of the forum, and, assuming that a monotheistic Objective Being exists, Rumi presents it in the form of an elephant. This metaphor, I believe, speaks loud in presenting the subjectivity and biases of all religions:

Expanding upon Rumi's poem, let us hypothetically say that each individual who touched the elephant and made such determinations onto the elephant's existence wrote a book on his/her findings, each claiming that the elephant inspired him/her to write the book. Over months, years, centuries, and millenia, many of their readers endorsed in their books; some believed one, some believed others, and some none. Soon enough, wars would break out as to which belief seemed superior, buildings would undergo construction and destruction in the elephant's memory, people would claim miracles had occurred because of the elephant, and many would believe that their lives exist because of the elephant. Which should we believe? Decisions, decisions . . .

You know, Rumi's poem is not very original. Almost the exact same thing is said long before him in the Vedas.

Anyway, all religious paths can lead to God. As Sri Ramakrishna says, a cake tastes just as good if you eat it from the front or the side.

"Truth is one; only It is called by different names. All people are seeking the same Truth; the variance is due to climate, temperament, and name. A lake has many ghats. From one ghat the Hindus take water in jars and call it ‘jal’. From another ghat the Mussalmāns take water in leather bags and call it ‘pāni’. From a third the Christians take the same thing and call it ‘water’. Suppose someone says that the thing is not ‘jal’ but ‘pāni’, or that it is not ‘pāni’ but ‘water’, or that it is not ‘water’ but ‘jal’, It would indeed be ridiculous. But this very thing is at the root of the friction among sects, their misunderstandings and quarrels. This is why people injure and kill one another, and shed blood, in the name of religion. But this is not good. Everyone is going toward God. They will all realize Him if they have sincerity and longing of heart."

"A man can reach the roof of a house by stone stairs or a ladder or a rope-ladder or a rope or even by a bamboo pole. But he cannot reach the roof if he sets foot now on one and now on another. He should firmly follow one path. Likewise, in order to realize God a man must follow one path with all his strength. But you must regard other views as so many paths leading to God. You should not feel that your path is the only right path and that other paths are wrong. You mustn’t bear malice toward others."

(Both quotes are from The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna)

[blazeofglory]

All religious texts are written by human hands and mirror human minds

[Babbalanja]

All religious texts are written by human hands and mirror human minds
There's literally no way to talk about the subject of religion if people don't at least agree on this point.

Regards,

Istvan

[blazeofglory]

There's literally no way to talk about the subject of religion if people don't at least agree on this point.

Regards,

Istvan

The point is not of agreeing and disagreeing. All I want to say is religions are born with humans only.

[togre]

Blazeofglory--how is your statement of anymore worth (or for that point any more true) than my statement: "Religions are born of humans except Christianity which alone is created by God."?

Whether you realize it or not you are seeking to control the dialogue without using arguments (rational or otherwise) or providing any evidence (from revelation or shared experience). Please give some reasons for asserting things.


Regarding the OP the question about whether or not a specific religious text is authored by God--This is not a question that can be answered objectively. In order to answer it you must make some assumptions about whether or not there is a God, what he is like, whether or not he is knowable apart from revelation, and whether he desires to reveal himself and how he does this. These assumptions often can't be adequately supported objectively without appeal to the writings in question (whose own validity have yet to be established in this argument).

Does that mean we have no hope? No, just that we should distrust anyone who claims to be objective.

On a personal note this is how come I believe that Bible is authored (and preserved) by God. I trust the Bible because I trust/have faith in God. He has made promises that his Word (his words themselves as well as their meaning) will endure unto the end of the world. I have seen that he is powerful, he is wise, he is good and he loves me (though I surely don't deserve it) so much he sent his Son to die in my place. Surely I can trust his promises when he tells me the Bible is his Word and will endure. The "problem" is that I hear about his love and goodness only through the Bible. Doesn't that make me wonder about whether or on those things are true. No. Because my faith (trust in God or confidence in his promises) is not mere intellectual assent or rational acceptance of facts. It includes these aspects but is also a supernatural, God-created spiritual trust. It's not my "fault" (or to my credit) that I believe in God. But having done so, trusting the Bible becomes a logical and inevitable conclusion.

Regarding the trust-worthiness of the manuscript tradition or how do we know what we have is the original Bible? We have manuscripts in the original languages that date to within a hundred year or so of the New Testament. We have manuscripts of the Old Testament that date within 500-700 years of the writing of the books and we have translations that are even earlier. This isn't just one or two manuscripts, these are hundreds or thousands of parchments from various geographic regions that make clear beyond question the precise original wording for the vast majority of the Bible. Furthermore translation, while not an exact science, is not undertaken lightly. As one who is trained in Greek and Hebrew and who has compared the original to modern translations I can say with confidence that the NIV, KJV and NASB are all very adequate and overwhelmingly accurate to the thoughts contained in the originals. Very, very little of the original Bible is not crystal clear to the modern reader.

[Babbalanja]

The "problem" is that I hear about his love and goodness only through the Bible. Doesn't that make me wonder about whether or on those things are true. No. Because my faith (trust in God or confidence in his promises) is not mere intellectual assent or rational acceptance of facts. It includes these aspects but is also a supernatural, God-created spiritual trust. It's not my "fault" (or to my credit) that I believe in God. But having done so, trusting the Bible becomes a logical and inevitable conclusion.
No, your faith doesn't include rationality, it acts completely independent of it. You've made up rational-sounding reasons for believing something you believe for non-rational reasons.

It's like saying If up were down, then the logical conclusion would be that things fall up. The conclusion is only valid because you're starting with a nonsensical premise. If you want to believe it, that's swell. But don't make it sound as if your belief is rational, or that someone is irrational for pointing that out.

Regards,

Istvan

[hack]

Faith is a difficult thing to explain or defend, you grow up in the preacher's house,
you mutter or shout
a few pious words
now and
then.

[togre]

No, your faith doesn't include rationality, it acts completely independent of it. You've made up rational-sounding reasons for believing something you believe for non-rational reasons.

It's like saying If up were down, then the logical conclusion would be that things fall up. The conclusion is only valid because you're starting with a nonsensical premise. If you want to believe it, that's swell. But don't make it sound as if your belief is rational, or that someone is irrational for pointing that out.



Babbalanja, you miss my point. I didn't say anyone was irrational, but that no worldview could be objectively or externally validated, because by their very nature worldviews include the logical tools and assumptions that are used to evaluate the rationality of objects. A Christian, by virtue of their worldview, is comfortable with miracles and relies on revelation to make sense of the world. But revelation can't externally validate revelation. A materialist, by virtue of their worldview, relies on observation and rejects miracles out of hand. But again, observation can not externally validate the worth of observation.

At best any belief system or worldview (including materialism or atheism) can possess only internal consistency or logic while resting on unprovable, a priori assumptions.

[Babbalanja]

Babbalanja, you miss my point. I didn't say anyone was irrational, but that no worldview could be objectively or externally validated, because by their very nature worldviews include the logical tools and assumptions that are used to evaluate the rationality of objects.
So let's believe anything!

It's interesting to see Christians, who believe in all-encompassing, eternal Truth-with-a-capital-T, peddling postmodern relativism when it suits their purpose. So on the one hand, God exists and wrote the Bible and works miracles in the world; on the other hand, all philosophical constructs are by definition self-validating and none is more valid than any other. Can you say compartmentalize?

Look, believe whatever you want. But on the one hand there's a scientific perspective that bases its claims on a legacy of research and testing, and can be applied to phenomena by anyone regardless of their philosophical or religious background. And on the other, there's a religious perspective based on personal emotion, wishful thinking, and self-delusion, which is reinforced by professing belief so constantly and so determinedly that it becomes easier and easier to deny reality.

Anyone who thinks both these perspectives are equally valid lives in a fantasy world.

Regards,

Istvan

[West]

Mono,

Mohamed pbuh didn't write the Quran himself, he was illiterate according to his biography. Arabs called him "Ummi", one who can neither read nor write. His companions wrote the Quran and compiled it after each revelation as the prophet(mohamed) recited to them. Also, according to Islamic teachings, All prophets and messengers(be they jews, non-jews, or from any other ethnicity) had the same mission and the same source of inspiration regardless of what time in history they lived. Each messenger supported and strengthened the previous messenger who came before him through their teachings. They all taught the same fundamental teachings about God. Jesus told the jews that he didn't come to destroy the law of moses but to fulfill it, Mohamed never claimed to have brought a new religion but one that completes the rest, corrects the mistakes people introduced to those previous religions(christianity, Judaism and others) and one that affirms their fundamental teachings. There is no confusion in islam when it comes to what is right or wrong in terms of beliefs, the message is universal, all prophets were legitimate, upright, good people, should be supported, their message believed, islam views concepts like trinity to be pauline doctrine and to be invalid, the Original teachings must be followed. That is the argument.

[mono]

Mono,

Mohamed pbuh didn't write the Quran himself, he was illiterate according to his biography. Arabs called him "Ummi", one who can neither read nor write. His companions wrote the Quran and compiled it after each revelation as the prophet(mohamed) recited to them. Also, according to Islamic teachings, All prophets and messengers(be they jews, non-jews, or from any other ethnicity) had the same mission and the same source of inspiration regardless of what time in history they lived. Each messenger supported and strengthened the previous messenger who came before him through their teachings. They all taught the same fundamental teachings about God. Jesus told the jews that he didn't come to destroy the law of moses but to fulfill it, Mohamed never claimed to have brought a new religion but one that completes the rest, corrects the mistakes people introduced to those previous religions(christianity, Judaism and others) and one that affirms their fundamental teachings. There is no confusion in islam when it comes to what is right or wrong in terms of beliefs, the message is universal, all prophets were legitimate, upright, good people, should be supported, their message believed, islam views concepts like trinity to be pauline doctrine and to be invalid, the Original teachings must be followed. That is the argument.
Great, thank you for confirming the fact that Mohammed did not author the Koran, West - upon a bit of quick research, I found such as true, too. As an endorser/believer/follower of no religions, I suppose my facts upon the specifics of some religions lack accuracy, and, indeed, I should have said in my previous post that Mohammed did not write the texts of the Koran, but recited them. The same occurred in Buddhism that Siddhartha Gautama never wrote any Buddhist texts; indeed, he delivered sermons, and no one, as a fact, knows Siddhartha's native language, but others, his disciples, recorded and distributed the few texts we have today, of which some debate their validity as to the accuracy of the transcribed from verbal sermons (as Siddhartha likely did not edit the texts - it sounds like Mohammed could not even if he wanted, due to his lack of literacy), whether composed in the presence of the sermons or written from memory, and the influence of the writer as opposed to the speaker's words.

[West]

Great, thank you for confirming the fact that Mohammed did not author the Koran, West - upon a bit of quick research, I found such as true, too. As an endorser/believer/follower of no religions, I suppose my facts upon the specifics of some religions lack accuracy, and, indeed, I should have said in my previous post that Mohammed did not write the texts of the Koran, but recited them. The same occurred in Buddhism that Siddhartha Gautama never wrote any Buddhist texts; indeed, he delivered sermons, and no one, as a fact, knows Siddhartha's native language, but others, his disciples, recorded and distributed the few texts we have today, of which some debate their validity as to the accuracy of the transcribed from verbal sermons (as Siddhartha likely did not edit the texts - it sounds like Mohammed could not even if he wanted, due to his lack of literacy), whether composed in the presence of the sermons or written from memory, and the influence of the writer as opposed to the speaker's words.



I appreciate your open mind on the correction. It is clear you have no other objectives except to expand your horizon where possible. I like to give you again from the Islamic perspective on the influence of the writer as opposed to the speaker whose words were written down. Before that though, a little on prophet Mohamed's illiteracy.

A- Prophet Mohamed's illiteracy became one of his strength as his society knew he could neither read nor write yet was reciting to them what seemed to be neither poetry nor anything else they have read before. His society were poets and valued poetry, so they could put him to task and throw doubts on his claims if the prophet was literate. Their chance to question the sources of his new knowledge, accuse him of copying and plagiarism were deminished that way. It sparked interest in them and many eventually believed in Mohamed being a messenger of God. The Quran itself invited the literate Arabs to come up with a similar chapter of the Quran, One verse, or one line since some of them were gifted poets. That challenge wasn't met either. So, if Mohamed didn't copy someone's work, didn't read, didn't write, his opposition couldn't come up with similar chapter of the Quran, a verse, or a line, and the Quran was revealed in their own language, they had no option but to question their opposition to the prophet. Some did and became muslims, some didn't though few.


B- Prophet Mohamed had the responsibility to deliver the message as it was without adding his words to what was revealed to him of the Quran. After each revelation, Different individuals wrote the text down as the prophet recited the Quran. These individuals acted as crosschecks for themselves. They wouldn't all collude to misrepresent.

D- These writers then read their cimbilation to the prophet himself who listened and verified the accuracy of what was written. Not only that but Gabriel(The angel tasked to deliver the Quran in small portions to the prophet over two decades) also verified the combilation, where each chapter fell, and each verse belonged by listening to the Quran recition of the prophet. In fact, when Gabrile met Mohamed in a cave, his first command to the prophet was "Read" to which Mohamed replied "I am not one who reads". Basically, The Quran was given a protection not given to other books of God. The responsibility of protecting the words of God was removed from humanity as opposed to God making previous followers of prophets(like christians and jews of old) the sole responsible beings for ensuring the accuracy and purity of their books. They failed.


PS: Above statement is the Islamic view, history and what muslims learn and are taught in the Quran. I don't mean to proselytize anyone, just giving the islamic perspective on Islam. Others are free to disagree or question the stance and facts about Islam.